PATENTS |
Practice |
M.T. Beauty Co. Ltd. v. Classic Furs Co.
T-1026-99
2002 FCT 276, Kelen J.
13/3/02
9 pp.
Motion for summary judgment dismissing patent infringement action--Action alleging patent infringement; counterclaim seeking declaration patent invalid--On November 28, 2000 patent reissued--Patent reissue added word "substantially" in claims 1, 9; deleted "bearing portion" from last sentence of same claims--Patent Act, s. 47(2) providing in so far as claims of original, reissued patents identical, surrender not affecting any action pending at time of reissue or abating any cause of action then existing-- Defendant relying on Stamicarbon B.V. v. Urea Casale S.A., [2001] 1 F.C. 172 (T.D.)--Submitted changes made upon reissue such that under s. 47(2) no claims under reissued patent identical to claims in original patent, leading to conclusion action under original patent abated under reissued patent--Plaintiffs submitting correct interpretation of claims beyond scope of summary judgment--On day motion for summary judgment argue, Federal Court of Appeal delivering judgment in Stamicarbon appeal ([2002] 3 F.C. 347)--Court of Appeal holding given apparent derivation of reissue provision, appropriate to consider American case law construing "identical", and that approach taken by American courts preferred to strict literal interpretation--Thus need for expert evidence evident where parties dispute what is old, new in claim--Application dismissed--Test on motion for summary judgment whether genuine issue of material fact requiring trial: Guarantee Co. of North America v. Gordon Capital Corp., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 423--F.C.A. reasons for judgment in Stamicarbon determinative of this motion-- Genuine issue of material fact for trial i.e. whether claims 1, 9 in reissued patent "identical" to claims 1, 9 in original patent--Expert evidence needed to determine whether scope of claims in reissued patent changed over original claims--If change in language not working substantive change in scope of claims, former claims identical to latter, even though language changed--Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4, s. 47.