MacLennan et al. v. Gilbert Tech Inc., (2008) 389 N.R. 165 (FCA)

• Judge: Noël, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: November 21, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2008), 389 N.R. 165 (FCA);2008 FCA 35

MacLennan v. Gilbert Tech Inc. (2008), 389 N.R. 165 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.R. TBEd. MR.015

Charles D. MacLennan et Quadco Equipment Inc. (appelants) v. Les Produits Gilbert Inc. (intimée)

(A-396-06; 2008 FCA 35; 2008 CAF 35)

Indexed As: MacLennan et al. v. Gilbert Tech Inc.

Federal Court of Appeal

Noël, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A.

January 29, 2008.

Summary:

The plaintiffs were the inventor and assignee of a patent for a combination of a saw tooth and tooth holder. The plaintiffs sued the defendant (Produits Gilbert Inc.), who also manufactured and sold circular saws and replacement parts, alleging patent infringement. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant encouraged forestry operators to infringe the plaintiffs' patent by inviting them to use the Gilbert teeth.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported 263 F.T.R. 116; 2004 FC 1700, held that the defendant was not infringing the plaintiffs' patent and dismissed the action. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 352 N.R. 354; 2006 FCA 204, allowed the appeal and remitted for redetermination an issue respecting infringement by inducement according to the applicable legal test.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 965; 2006 FC 1038, held that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the existence of the first element of the three-part test to establish that Produits Gilbert was guilty of infringement by inducement, that being, direct infringement by the forestry operators who used the Gilbert teeth. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the trial judgment, and allowed the infringement action with respect to infringement by inducement respecting a number of claims in the plaintiffs' patent.

Patents of Invention - Topic 2890

Infringement of patent - Acts constituting an infringement - Inducing infringement - The plaintiffs were the inventor and assignee of a patent for a combination of a repositionable saw tooth and detachable tooth holder - The defendant manufactured replicas of the plaintiffs' teeth solely for installation in the plaintiffs' tooth holders - The defendant also distributed a price list indicating the series number of the plaintiffs' teeth which the defendant's teeth were designed to replace - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, alleging infringement by inducing forestry operators to use the defendant's teeth - The Federal Court rejected the claim - The plaintiffs appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the defendant was liable for infringement by inducement - The fact that the defendant's teeth had no other use than to work the patented invention was not sufficient in itself to establish infringement by inducement; however, the situation became inculpatory when the defendant indicated to its clients the use that should be made of the component (i.e., that the teeth were intended to work in the patented invention).

Cases Noticed:

Dableh v. Ontario Hydro (1996), 199 N.R. 57; 68 C.P.R.(3d) 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Halford et al. v. Seed Hawk Inc. et al. (2004), 46 F.T.R. 1; 31 C.P.R.(4th) 434; 2004 FC 88, refd to. [para. 13].

AB Hassle et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) et al. (2001), 213 F.T.R. 161; 16 C.P.R.(4th) 21 (T.D.), affd. (2002), 298 N.R. 323; 22 C.P.R.(4th) 1; 2002 FCA 421, refd to. [para. 13].

Slater Steel Industries Ltd. et al. v. Payer (R.) Co. et al. (1968), 55 C.P.R. 61 (Ex. Ct.), dist. [para. 20].

Whirlpool Corp. et al. v. Camco Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 263 N.R. 88, refd to. [para. 22].

Copeland-Chatterson Co. v. Hatton (1906), 10 Ex. C.R. 224, affd. (1906), 37 S.C.R. 651, refd to. [para. 33].

Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy (1988), 82 N.R. 235; 20 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Permacon Québec Inc. v. Les Enterprises Arsenault & Frères Inc., [1988] 2 F.C. 179; 17 F.T.R. 1; 19 C.P.R.(3d) 378 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Innes v. Short and Beal (1898), 15 R.P.C. 449, refd to. [para. 35].

Townsend v. Haworth (1875), 12 Ch. D. 831, refd to. [para. 36].

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Mosely (David) & Sons Ltd. (1904), 15 R.P.C. 974, refd to. [para. 37].

Sykes v. Haworth (1879), 12 Ch. D. 826, refd to. [para. 37].

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bristol-Myers Canada Ltd. (1979), 39 C.P.R.(2d) 145 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

Windsurfing International Inc. v. Bic Sports Inc. (1985), 63 N.R. 218; 8 C.P.R.(3d) 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Harold George, The Canadian Law and Practice Relating to Letters Patent for Inventions (4th Ed. 1969), p. 301 [para. 14].

Grenier, François, Contributory and/or Induced Patent Infringement (1987), 4 C.I.P.R. 26, generally [para. 33].

Counsel:

François Guay and Marc-André Huot, for the appellants;

Bob H. Sotiriadis, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Smart & Biggar, Montréal, Québec, for the appellants;

Léger Robic Richard, Montréal, Québec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on November 21, 2007, before Noël, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following judgment was delivered by Noël, J.A., at Ottawa, Ontario on January 29, 2008.