Date: 20011129
Docket: T-754-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1315
BETWEEN:
BAUER NIKE HOCKEY INC.
Plaintiff
and
PAUL REGAN
Defendant
RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
[1] This is a motion by the Defendant in a patent infringement action for an order striking out paragraph 25 of the Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim or, alternatively, for an Order requiring the Plaintiff to provide further particulars with respect to said paragraph as well as with respect to paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim.
Background
[2] The Defendant is the inventor and owner of Canadian Patent No. 2,219,072 (the 072 Patent), issued on August 22, 2000. The invention disclosed in the 072 Patent is a hockey undershirt incorporating wrist and neck guards, which allows a hockey player to dress and undress more quickly and which simplifies the care and storage of hockey garments and protective devices.
[3] The Plaintiff manufactures and sells products which include elements and features of the invention disclosed in the 072 Patent.
[4] On August 9, 2001, the Plaintiff served an amended Statement of Claim, seeking among other things:
(a) a declaration that the Plaintiff's products have not infringed any of the claims of the 072 Patent; and
(b) a declaration that certain claims of the 072 Patent are invalid.
[5] Paragraph 24 of the Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim alleges that the 072 Patent is invalid for failing to comply with section 28.3 of the Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4 (the Act) in that the subject matter was obvious on the claim date to a person skilled in the art or science. The Plaintiff further lists fourteen (14) prior art documents in support of this allegation.
Analysis
[6] I shall deal first with impugned paragraph 25 of the Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim.
[7] Paragraph 25 of the Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim states:
Le brevet en cause est invalide conformément à l'article 27(3) de la Loi sur les brevets puisque le mémoire descriptif ne décrit pas d'une façon exacte et complète la prétendue invention et n'expose pas clairement le mode de fabrication de la prétendue invention dans des termes complets, clairs, concis et exacts, qui permettent à toute personne versée dans l'art visé par le brevet en cause de fabriquer la prétendue invention. L'insuffisance de la description est due au fait que la réalisation préférentielle décrite ne constitue pas la meilleure manière de réaliser la prétendue invention.
[8] As for the reason why the striking out of said paragraph is requested, the Defendant refers the Court to the last sentence of said paragraph and in particular to the fact that the Plaintiff uses therein the expression "la meilleure manière".
[9] According to the Defendant, that expression triggers the application of paragraph 27(3)(c) of the Act which has no application to the facts at hand since the invention at bar is not a "machine" pursuant to subsection 27(3) of the Act. Subsection 27(3) reads as follows:
|
(3) The specification of an invention must (a) correctly and fully describe the invention and its operation or use as contemplated by the inventor; (b) set out clearly the various steps in a process, or the method of constructing, making, compounding or using a machine, manufacture or composition of matter, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it pertains, or with which it is most closely connected, to make, construct, compound or use it; (c) in the case of a machine, explain the principle of the machine and the best mode in which the inventor has contemplated the application of that principle; and (d) in the case of a process, explain the necessary sequence, if any, of the various steps, so as to distinguish the invention from other inventions. |
(3) Le mémoire descriptif doit_: a) décrire d'une façon exacte et complète l'invention et son application ou exploitation, telles que les a conçues son inventeur; b) exposer clairement les diverses phases d'un procédé, ou le mode de construction, de confection, de composition ou d'utilisation d'une machine, d'un objet manufacturé ou d'un composé de matières, dans des termes complets, clairs, concis et exacts qui permettent à toute personne versée dans l'art ou la science dont relève l'invention, ou dans l'art ou la science qui s'en rapproche le plus, de confectionner, construire, composer ou utiliser l'invention; c) s'il s'agit d'une machine, en expliquer clairement le principe et la meilleure manière dont son inventeur en a conçu l'application; d) s'il s'agit d'un procédé, expliquer la suite nécessaire, le cas échéant, des diverses phases du procédé, de façon à distinguer l'invention en cause d'autres inventions. |
[10] The Plaintiff concedes that the alleged invention is not a "machine" within the meaning of paragraph 27(3)(c) and admits that it is not relying at all on said paragraph.
[11] However, the Plaintiff points out that the expression "meilleure manière" used in paragraph 25 of its amended Statement of Claim is linked to "la meilleure manière de réaliser la prétendue invention" (my underlining) which is a reference to the obligation put on any inventor to disclose the preferred embodiment in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 27(3)(a) and (b) of the Act.
[12] According to paragraph 3 of the Plaintiff's written representations, the impugned sentence at paragraph 25 of the Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim only refers to:
L'obligation de décrire dans son brevet la meilleure manière de réaliser l'invention telle que l'a conçue son inventeur existe depuis toujours. Elle s'inscrit dans le cadre de l'exigence de divulgation complète prévue aux sous-paragraphes 27(3)a) et b) de la Loi sur les brevets (la « Loi » ), et elle s'applique conséquemment à l'égard de toute invention, y compris les objets manufacturés comme le chandail de hockey avec un protège-cou intégré de Regan.
« At common law a patent was always held invalid, not only if the inventor misled the public, but also if he failed to communicate all his knowledge with respect to the invention. ... The principle is merely a part of the requirement of good faith in making the disclosure and is continued by the statute which requires that the applicant shall "fully describe the invention". ... He is merely required to describe correctly and fully what is his invention. This necessarily involves the duty of disclosing the best method of so doing as contemplated by him. » (nous soulignons)
- Harold FOX, The Canadian Law and Practice Relating to Letters Patent for Inventions, 4th ed., Carswell Co. Ltd., Toronto, 1969, à la p. 180 (ongl.4)
Ce « duty of disclosing the best method as contemplated by the inventor » dont parle Fox découle de l'exigence de bonne foi qui se rattache à l'obligation statutaire « to fully describe the invention » qui est prévue au sous-paragraphe 27(3)a) de la Loi.
[13] Therefore, with respect to striking out paragraph 25 of the Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim, I must side with the Plaintiff and conclude for the above reasons that it is not clear and obvious that said paragraph 25 should be struck out. Consequently, that portion of the Defendant's motion is denied.
[14] I now turn to the Defendant's request for particulars regarding paragraph 25 of the Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim, and in particular that the Plaintiff be requested, inter alia, to provide the basis on which the Plaintiff claims that the specification of the 072 Patent is insufficient because it fails to describe the best mode.
[15] I agree with the Defendant that the Plaintiff should be ordered to answer that specific request, i.e., to provide the basis relied upon. As indicated by the Defendant, if the Plaintiff can assert that the 072 Patent fails to disclose something, i.e., the preferred embodiment, it surely can identify the basis upon which said allegation is based.
[16] Although it is possible to find some case law which opined to the contrary, I prefer here to rely on more authoritative decisions to sustain my conclusion (see Denharco Inc. v. Forespro Inc., [1999_] F.C.J. 849, page 3, paragraphs 10 and 11; B & J Manufacturing Co. v. Canadian Pneumatic Tool Co. (Ltd.) (1984), 77 C.P.R. (2d) 257, at 259; Contour Optik Inc. v. Hakim Optical Laboratory Ltd., [2001] F.C.J. 275, at pages 11-12).
[17] As for the particulars requested with respect to paragraph 24 of the Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim, I also agree with the Defendant that the Plaintiff should be ordered to indicate which portions of the documents listed in paragraph 24 of the Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim are relied upon in support of the allegation that the 072 Patent is invalid for failing to comply with section 28.3 of the Act.
[18] It is trite law that where lack of novelty or obviousness is alleged, the mere reference to a list of patents or other publications is insufficient. The party pleading novelty or obviousness must specify the exact particulars of these publications which are referred to in the allegations (Denharco Inc., supra).
[19] An order will issue accordingly.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
Montreal, Quebec
November 29, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-754-01
BAUER NIKE HOCKEY INC.
Plaintiff
AND
PAUL REGAN
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING:Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING:November 2, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
DATED:November 29, 2001
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Marc-André Huot |
for Plaintiff |
|
| Mr. Gregory A. Piasetzki Mr. John Bujan |
for Defendant |
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Smart & Biggar Montreal, Quebec |
for Plaintiff |
|
| Piasetzki & Nenniger Toronto, Ontario |
for Defendant |
|