PATENTS |
Infringement |
Canamould Extrusions Ltd. v. Driangle Inc.
T-705-99
2003 FCT 244, Layden-Stevenson J.
26/2/03
33 pp.
Plaintiff owner of Canamould patent, describing, claiming method, device allowing for industrial, high-volume production of pre-coated mouldings--Claim of infringement by Canamould Extrusions Ltd. (plaintiff) against Driangle Inc. (defendant)--Proper construction of claims of Canamould patent allegedly infringed by defendant--Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067 delineating principles to be applied in claim construction--Patent construction antecedent to issues of validity and infringement--Patent construction as of date of publication--Claim language must be read in informed and purposive way--Claim interpretation neither literal nor based on vague notions such as "spirit of invention" --Inventor's intention manifested in patent claims as interpreted by person skilled in art--Average person skilled in art of patent not grammarian or etymologist and does not indulge in meticulous and verbal analysis--Words chosen by inventor read in sense inventor intended and in way sympathetic to accomplishment of inventor's purpose, expressed or implicit, in text of claims--No infringement if essential element different or omitted--Element in claim considered non-essential and substitutable if either: (i) purposive construction of words of claim clearly not intended to be essential, or (ii) at date of publication of patent, skilled addressee would have appreciated particular element could be substituted without affecting working of invention--Onus on patentee to establish known and obvious substitutability at date of publication--If patentee fails to discharge onus, descriptive word or expression in claim considered essential unless context claim language otherwise dictates--Extrinsic evidence inadmissible for purpose of construing patent specification, however, expert evidence admitted for purpose of explaining meaning of terms used and for determining common knowledge and state of art at time of patent--Court concluded table, alignment and coating containment chamber essential elements of claim 1--Table, alignment, coating containment chamber and driving means essential elements of claim 9--Whether method and device by respondent in manufacture of decorative mouldings within scope of claims of Canamould patent--After claim construed, infringement determined by comparing allegedly infringing article with words of claims--Infringement if article includes all essential elements of at least one of patent claims--Given construction of word "table", defendant's table does not infringe essential element of either claim 1 or claim 9--Whether original or reissued Canamould patents invalid because anticipated or obvious in view of common general knowledge and prior patents available or filed in Canada at claim date, August 28, 1995--Test for obviousness consisting of whether man on "Clapham omnibus of patent law" (reasonable man) would, in light of state of art and of common general knowledge as at claimed date of invention, have come directly and without difficulty to solution taught by patent--Defendant not establishing plaintiff's combination invention reasonably predictable--Canamould patent constituted invention that would not be arrived at directly and without difficulty by unimaginative person skilled in art--Patent not invalid for obviousness--Claim of infringement dismissed--Defendant entitled to declaration Driangle device does not infringe Canamould patent.