Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. et al. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., (1993) 152 N.R. 292 (FCA)

• Judge: Stone, Desjardins and Décary, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: February 12, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 152 N.R. 292 (FCA)

Rothmans v. Imperial Tobacco (1993), 152 N.R. 292 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (appellant) v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., Efka-Werke Fritz Kiehn GmbH and Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH (respondents)

(A-398-91)

Indexed As: Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. et al. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone, Desjardins and Décary, JJ.A.

February 12, 1993.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for patent infringement respecting a patent for a make-your-own cigarette consisting of a pre-portioned rod of tobacco surrounded by cigarette paper of a tubular shape. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to enjoin sale of the defendants' product.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, allowed the action in a judgment re­ported 42 F.T.R. 68; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 417. The defendants appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Injunctions - Topic 6312

Injury to trade - Patent infringement - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 3103 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 1581

Grounds of invalidity - Lack of inventive ingenuity - General - Obviousness - Rothmans was the exclusive licensee re­specting a fine cut tobacco invention - The new product was tobacco formed in a tube and surrounded by a porous wrapper, which could not be smoked by itself, but could be inserted by the purchaser into a tube formed of cigarette paper and then smoked - A competitor, Imperial, began selling a similar product - Rothmans sued for patent infringement - Imperial chal­lenged the validity of Rothmans' patent on the grounds of obviousness and anticipa­tion - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the validity of the patent.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1583

Grounds of invalidity - Lack of inventive ingenuity - Commercial success - Effect of - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that commercial success was only one factor in proof of an invention, but that the trial judge did not err in stating that com­mercial success was "convincing proof" of the invention, where his overall evaluation of the evidence was accurate - See para­graphs 51 to 55.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1589

Grounds of invalidity - Lack of inventive ingenuity - Particular patents - [See Pat­ents of Invention - Topic 1581 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 1601

Grounds of invalidity - Anticipation - General - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 1581 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 3103

Infringement of patent - Remedies - Injunctive relief - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a judgment affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal, enjoined the sale of a "make-your-own" cigarette by a tobacco manufacturer, which violated another's patent, and ordered the manufacturer to deliver up to the patent holder all offending product on hand.

Patents of Invention - Topic 3109

Infringement of patent - Remedies - Order for delivery up or destruction - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 3103 ].

Cases Noticed:

Commissioner of Patents v. Farbwerke Hoechst AG, [1964] S.C.R. 49, appld. [para. 18].

Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy (1986), 64 N.R. 287; 8 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.A.), appld. [paras. 18, 53, footnote 3].

Diversified Products Corp. v. Tye-Sil Corp. (1991), 125 N.R. 218; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 350 (F.C.A.), appld. [paras. 18, 53, footnote 3].

Van Hayden v. Neudstadt (1880), 50 L.J.(Ch.) 126 (C.A.), consd. [para. 32].

Creations 2000 Inc. v. Canper Industrial Products Ltd. (1990), 124 N.R. 161; 34 C.P.R.(3d) 178 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 33].

Baxter Travenol Laboratories Ltd. v. Cut­ter (Canada) Ltd. (1983), 45 N.R. 393; 68 C.P.R.(2d) 179 (F.C.A.), consd. [paras. 33, 53, footnote 3].

Mahurkar v. Vas-Cath of Canada Ltd. and Gambro Canada Ltd. (1988), 16 F.T.R. 48; 18 C.P.R.(3d) 417; affd. 105 N.R. 38; 32 C.P.R. (3d) 409 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 33].

Mahurkar v. Vas-Cath of Canada Ltd. and Gambro Canada Ltd. (1990), 105 N.R. 38; 32 C.P.R.(3d) 409 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 3].

Lubrizol Corp. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. (1992), 150 N.R. 207 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 33].

Stein v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 802; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 1, appld. [para. 50].

N.V. Bocimar S.A. v. Century Insurance Co. of Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1247; 76 N.R. 212, appld. [para. 50].

Farbwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaf et al. v. Halocarbon (Ontario) Ltd. and Halo­carbon Products Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 929; 27 N.R. 582, appld. [para. 50].

Wright & Corson v. Brake Service Ltd., [1925] Ex. C.R. 127, affd. [1926] S.C.R. 434, appld. [para. 52].

Longbottom v. Shaw (1891), 8 R.P.C. 333, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 1].

Parkes (Samuel) & Co. v. Cocker Brothers Ltd. (1929), 46 R.P.C. 241, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 1].

Heginbotham Brothers Ltd. and ano. v. Burne (1939), 56 R.P.C. 399 [para. 53, footnote 1].

Non-Drip Measure Co. v. Stranger Ltd. et al. (1943), 60 R.P.C. 135, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 1].

Guettler et al. v. Canadian International Paper Co., [1928] S.C.R. 438, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 2].

Burt Business Forms Ltd. v. Autographic Register Systems Ltd., [1933] S.C.R. 230, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 2].

R. v. Uhlemann Optical Co., [1952] S.C.R. 143, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 2].

Niagara Wire Weaving Co. v. Johnson Wire Works Ltd., [1940] S.C.R. 700, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 2].

Windsurfing International Inc. v. Bic Sports Inc. (1985), 63 N.R. 218; 8 C.P.R.(3d) 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 3].

Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp. (1987), 79 N.R. 351; 18 C.P.R.(3d) 180 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 3].

Statutes Noticed:

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 2 [para. 47]; sect. 47 [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Canadian Patent Law and Practice (4th Ed. 1969), pp. 72 [para. 32]; 74-78 [para. 52]; 125 [para. 33]; 136-137 [para. 31].

Terrell, Law of Patents (13th Ed. 1982), para. 5.110 [para. 53].

White, Patents for Inventions (5th Ed. 1983), para. 4-221 [para. 53].

Counsel:

Nicholas H. Fyfe, Q.C., and Glen B. Tremblay, for the appellant;

Roger T. Hughes, Q.C., and Timothy M. Lowman, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Sim, Hughes, Dimock, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents.

This case was heard on January 13-14, 1993, at Toronto, Ontario, before Stone, Desjardins and Décary, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On February 12, 1993, Desjardins, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court: