Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault (F.P.) Industries, (1991) 123 N.R. 235 (FCA)

• Judge: Mahoney, Hugessen and Desjardins, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: December 06, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 123 N.R. 235 (FCA)

Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault Ind. (1991), 123 N.R. 235 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Flexi-Coil Ltd. (respondent/plaintiff, defendant by counterclaim) v. F.P. Bourgault Industries Air Seeder Division Ltd. (appellant/defendant, plaintiff by counterclaim)

(A-615-90)

Indexed As: Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault (F.P.) Industries

Federal Court of Appeal

Mahoney, Hugessen and Desjardins, JJ.A.

January 10, 1991.

Summary:

The respondent commenced an action against the appellant, alleging infringement of the respondent's reissue patent for a "multiple section draw bar". The appellant applied for summary judgment for dismissal of the action, arguing that the reissue patent was invalid.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 36 F.T.R. 149, dismissed the appellant's appeal. The appel­lant appealed again.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1276

Reissue of patents - Validity of the reissue - General - [See Practice - Topic 5702 ].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ment - When available - The respondent sued the appellant for infringement of a reissue patent - The appellant applied for summary judgment to dismiss the respon­dent's action, arguing that the reissue patent was invalid - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to grant summary judgment where the court was not persuaded the factual matters between the parties were beyond controversy nor that the legal result flowing from the ad­mitted facts was beyond doubt - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Practice - Topic 5705

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ment - Requirement that question in issue be in doubt - [See Practice - Topic 5702 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gary Bowl Limited, [1974] 2 F.C. 146, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 5].

Preston v. 20th Century Fox Corp. and Lucas (1987), 15 F.T.R. 54; 15 C.I.P.R. 110, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 7].

Curl-Master Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Brush Ltd., [1967] S.C.R. 514, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 8].

Northern Electric Co. Ltd. et al. v. Photo Sound Corp. et al., [1936] S.C.R. 649, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 9].

International Business Machines Corpora­tion v. Xerox of Canada Limited and Xerox Corporation (1977), 16 N.R. 355, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 341(a) [para. 1 et seq.].

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-4, sect. 47(1) [para. 4, footnote 3]; sect. 53(1) [para. 4, footnote 2].

Counsel:

Russell S. Smart, Q.C., and James D. Kokonis, Q.C., for the appellant;

Gordon S. Clarke, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Smart & Biggar, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Gordon S. Clarke, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on December 6, 1990, before Mahoney, Hugessen and Desjardins, JJ.A., of the Fed­eral Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Desjardins, J.A., on January 10, 1991: