This lawsuit involves two patents describing a method and
apparatus for bending and tempering glass sheets. Neither defendant
filed a Statement of Defence with the Court. The plaintiffs filed a
motion for default judgment. The Court, at that time, granted an
interlocutory injunction and ordered a one day trial with leave to
read in the affidavits from the default judgment motion as evidence
at trial as long as the affiants were available to answer
questions. These reasons are the result of that trial.
The Court held that, in a motion for default judgment, every
allegation must be treated as denied. Thus, evidence must be led to
enable the Court to find on a balance of probabilities that
infringement has occurred. The Court held that the plaintiffs can
benefit from the presumption of validity of the patents as the
defendants did not put validty at issue. The Court then construed
the patents and considered the evidence of infringement.
The Court found that one defendant was liable for infringing
both patents. The second defendant was only found liable for
infringing one of the patents as the Court held that it had never
been served with the amended Statement of Claim alleging
infringement of the second patent. The Court also found inducement
to infringe with respect to one of the defendants. An injunction
was granted against one of the defendants, as the other has made an
assignment in bankruptcy. Damages were deferred to be determined by
a Prothonotary at a later date.
OTHER CASES OF INTEREST
Court Refuses to Reconsider or Vary its Decision Relating to
The Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB) made a
decision that Teva's product COPAXONE had been sold at an
excessive price. The Court reviewed this decision and returned the
matter to the PMPRB for redetermination, found here (the Original Decision). The hearing of
the redetermination has not yet been held.
Teva brought a motion for an Order that the redetermination be
made on the basis of the existing record, in light of a decision by
the PMPRB to allow Board Staff to file additional evidence. Teva
did not ask the Court to review the PMPRB's decision to allow
the additional evidence, but relied on Rules 397 and 399 to revise
the Original Decision. The Court dismissed the motion, noting that
there has been little jurisprudence considering the meaning of the
word "redetermined". The Court stated that the Original
Decision ordered only that the matter be redetermined, without any
further direction as to how the redetermination was to be done.
Thus, the Court found that it should not supervise how the
redetermination is conducted, but would conduct a judicial review
of the final decision if requested by one of the parties.
A recent Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench decision allowed a court-appointed receiver to sell and transfer intellectual property rights free and clear of encumbrances, finding that a license to use improvements of an invention was a contractual interest and not a property interest.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).