Realsearch v. Valon Kone Brunette, (2004) 317 N.R. 38 (FCA)

• Judge: Stone, Rothstein and Sharlow, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: January 09, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 317 N.R. 38 (FCA);2004 FCA 5

Realsearch v. Valon Kone Brunette (2004), 317 N.R. 38 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. JA.040

Realsearch Inc. and Dingwell's Machinery & Supply Ltd. (appellants) v. Valon Kone Brunette Ltd. and BDR Machinery Ltd. (respondents)

(A-260-03; 2004 FCA 5; 2004 CAF 5)

Indexed As: Realsearch Inc. et al. v. Valon Kone Brunette Ltd. et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone, Rothstein and Sharlow, JJ.A.

January 9, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for patent infringement. The defendants moved pursuant to rule 107 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, for a separate determination of the issue of claim construction and for a schedule for this determination.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 234 F.T.R. 312, granted the motion. The court ruled that the case be dealt with as a specially managed proceeding and that the issue of claim con­struction be dealt with by the case manage­ment judge in collaboration with the parties. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Patents of Invention - Topic 3506

Infringement actions - General - Severance of issues - The plaintiffs sued the defend­ants for patent infringement - The defend­ants moved pursuant to rule 107 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, for a separ­ate determi­nation of the issue of claim con­struction - A motions judge granted the motion, stating: "Without settlement, patent infringement actions in this Court often take many years to be resolved. I believe that this suggested new procedure might give an opportunity to parties to speed up the litigation in such actions. If, early in the litigation, the claims are con­strued, the par­ties can poss­ibly better determine the rela­tive merits of their posi­tions. The chances of success for one party or the other could be better ascertained and as­sessed by each." - The Federal Court of Ap­peal set aside the decision where it was not apparent that sufficient attention was given to the factor of just determination of proceedings and where there was no evi­dence that severance of the issues of claim construction could save time and expense here.

Practice - Topic 5204

Trials - General - Severance of issues or parties - General - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 3506 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reza v. Minister of Employment and Im­mi­gra­tion, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; 167 N.R. 282; 72 O.A.C. 348, refd to. [para. 3].

Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc. (1996), 517 U.S. 370, refd to. [para. 8].

Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1024; 263 N.R. 150; 2000 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 8].

Whirlpool Corp. et al. v. Camco Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 263 N.R. 88; 2000 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 8].

Polansky Electronics Ltd. v. AGT Ltd. et al. (2001), 277 A.R. 43; 242 W.A.C. 43; 2001 ABCA 36, refd to. [para. 8].

Flores v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al., 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31117, refd to. [para. 9].

Piercy v. Young (1880), 15 Ch. D. 475, consd. [para. 11].

Tilling v. Whiteman, [1980] A.C. 1 (H.L.), consd. [para. 11].

Illva Saronno S.p.A. v. Privilegiata fabbrica maraschino Excelsior Girolamo Luxardo S.p.A. et al., [1999] 1 F.C. 146; 157 F.T.R. 217 (T.D.), consd. [para. 12].

Morenco Industries Inc. v. Creations 2000 Inc. (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 407 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Rohm & Haas Co. of Canada v. Sherwin-Williams Co. of Canada Ltd. and Fraser, [1956] Ex. C.R. 274; 25 C.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Berliner Gram-O-Phone Co. v. Columbia Phonograph Co. (1908), 12 Ex. C.R. 240, refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, 1998, rule 3 [para. 15]; rule 107(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

David W. Aitken, for the appellants;

Ronald E. Dimock and Michael D. Crin­son, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellants;

Dimock Stratton Clarizio LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 10, 2003, by Stone, Rothstein and Sharlow, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 9, 2004, by Stone, J.A.