- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services industries
- with Inhouse Counsel
On July 14, 2026, the Federal Court issued its decision on the long-running case of GEMAK Trust v. Jempak ULC. GEMAK started the action more than 8 years ago, alleging that Jempak had infringed its patent relating to detergent product formulations that can be packaged in a water-soluble film. The window within which GEMAK was seeking damages was from July 3, 2012 (6 years before the start of the action) to January 12, 2018 (the expiry of the patent).
The court dismissed the patent infringement claim advanced by GEMAK. In arriving at this conclusion, the court found that one of GEMAK’s expert witnesses (who had conducted chemical testing of Jempak’s products) had overstated conclusions and was evasive during cross-examination. The court also found that there were problems with the testing, which ran the risk of cross-contamination.
The court also granted Jempak’s counterclaim that certain claims in the patent were invalid for insufficiency of disclosure. The court found that the inventor had withheld information in the patent application about which formulations succeeded and which failed and thus did not uphold his end of the patent bargain. The inventor left the task of finding out which formulations worked to the skilled person.
This case demonstrates the importance of reliable experimental evidence in infringement cases. It is also a rare example where a patent was held invalid for insufficient disclosure based on a failure to disclose critical information.
The decision may be found here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]