A Separate Trial on Claim Construction: Is the Markman Proceeding Welcome in Canada?
ASEPARATETRIALONCLAIMCONSTRUCTION:ISTHEMARKMANPROCEEDING
WELCOMEINCANADA?
By
NathalieJodoinandAdamMizera
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
ForthefirsttimeinCanada,andbeinginspiredbyanAmericanprocedure
knownasthe“MarkmanProceeding”,theFederalCourtofCanadain
RealsearchInc.v.ValonKoneBrunetteLtd.,(2003)F.C.T.669,May282003
(NoëlJ.)(hereafterRealsearch),acaseonpatentinfringement,grantedan
orderbasedonRule107oftheFederalCourtRules(1998)thatclaim
constructioninthiscasebeexaminedinaseparatepreliminarytrialpriorto
themaintrial.Thus,theFederalCourtofCanadahasopenedupitsusually
restrictiveinterpretationofRule107,whichisrarelygrantedwithoutconsentof
theparties.
TheMarkmanproceedingcameintoexistenceaftertheU.S.SupremeCourt
decisioninMarkmanv.WestviewInstruments,517U.S.370(hereafter
Markman).Thisproceedingisusedtoestablishaseparatepreliminarytrialon
claimconstruction.IntheMarkmancase,theU.S.SupremeCourtconfirmed
thatclaimconstructionisamatteroflaw.Hence,sincethedecision,claim
construction,asamatteroflaw,mustbeevaluatedbyajudgealoneina
preliminarytrial,beforebeingsubmittedtoajudgeandjuryinthemaintrial.
InRealsearch,thePlaintiffheldapatentonamechanicaldevicetoremove
barkfromlogsandclaimedthattheDefendant’sdeviceinfringedtheirrights
intosuchtechnology.Indefence,theDefendantclaimedthatRealsearch’s
patentwasinvalid,and,throughamotion,requestedaseparatehearingon
claimconstruction.
InordertograntaMarkman-typeorderforaseparatetrial,theFederalCourt
inRealsearchexaminedwhethersuchaproceedingcouldhelpensurea
betterdebateonthemeritsofthecase,whileresultinginamorejust,
expeditiousandlessexpensiveresolutionofthecasebetweentheparties.
TheCourtnotedthatCanadiancaselawhadshownthatclaimconstruction
necessarilyprecededinquiriesintoquestionsofvalidityandinfringement.
Therefore,earlyclaimconstructioncouldhelppartiesbetterevaluatethe
respectivemeritsoftheirpositions,andtheirchancesofsucceedingincourt.
Althoughrecognizingthatthereisnoabsoluteguaranteeofsuccesswhen
usingsuchaproceeding,thecourtsubmittedthatpartieswouldinevitably
benefitfromsucharuling,andorderedaseparatetrial.
However,thecontextbehindtheMarkmandecisionintheU.S.,whichinspired
theCanadiancourt’srulinginRealsearch,ismuchdifferent.Markmanwasa
patentinfringementcaserelatedtodry-cleaningserviceinventorysystems.
Thecentralissueofthecaserelatedtoananalysisofwhetherclaim
constructionwasamatteroffacttobejudgedbyajuryorratheramatterof
law,andwhowasbetterplacedtoanalyseclaimconstruction.TheU.S.
CourtsinMarkmanstatedthatclaimconstructionbyajudgewithoutajury
hadseveraladvantages:anincreasedstabilityinthecriteriausedto
determineinfringementornot,aswellastheassurancethatajudgeisusually
betterplacedtoanalysetheclaimsofapatentbyusingestablishedrulesof
interpretation.Consequently,itwasheldthatclaimconstructionwasnotto
belefttothehazardsofajurytrial,andhencetheconceptofseparatetrial
wascreated.Asitcanbeseen,theratiosoftheCanadianandAmerican
courtsbehindthecreationofthisseparateproceedingisquitedifferent.
Americanlegalscholarshavepointedoutseveralweaknessesofthe
Markmanproceeding.Forexample,ifclaimconstructionfavoursthePlaintiff
andinfringementisestablished,aseparateproceedingwillonlyhaveslowed
downthemaintrialanddelayeddeterminationsofdamages[SeeD.H.
BinneyetT.L.Myricks,“PatentClaimInterpretationAfterMarkman–HowHave
theTrialCourtsAdapted?”38IDEA155,atp.161.].Also,theMarkman
proceedinggivesU.S.FederalCircuitcourtstherighttocarryoutclaim
constructiondenovoinanewtrial,thelatterbeingamatteroflawwhich
canbeappealed,withare-examinationofproofandexpertwitnesses,thus
possibilitysubjectingpartiesunnecessarilytoadditionalproceedings[SeeE.J.
Norman,“Markmanv.WestviewInstruments,Inc.:TheSupremeCourtNarrows
theJury’sRoleinPatentLitigation”(1997)48MercerL.Rev.955,atp.963.].
Additionally,studiesoftheperformanceofAmericanjudgesininfringement
casesyieldinterestingresultsthatcanbeusedtoevaluatewhetherthe
reasoningoftheCourtinMarkmanthatjudgeswerebetterplacedthanjuries
tocarryoutclaimconstructionwascorrect.In2001,closetoonethirdof
lowercourts’judgementsontheissuesofclaimconstructionwereoverturned
inappealattheFederalCircuitCourtlevel,thusprovingthatlowercourt
judgesdonotnecessarilypossessthecorrecttoolstocarryoutclaim
constructionwithsufficientprecisionandstability[SeeK.A.Moore,“AreDistrict
CourtJudgesEquippedtoResolvePatentCases?”,(2001)15Harv.J.Law&
Tec.1,atp.38.].In2003,onestudyshowsthatthatnumberhasclimbedto
closeto40%ofcases[SeeA.T.Zidel,“PatentClaimConstructionintheTrial
Courts:AStudyShowingtheNeedforClearGuidancefromtheFederal
Circuit”,(2003)SetonHallL.Rev.711,àlap.754.].Giventhishighnumberof
appeals,certainauthorssubmitthataMarkman-typeproceedingcanonly
helpincreaseacourt’sefficiencyifappealcourtsarereadytoacceptand
disposeofquicklyofinterlocutoryjudgementsrelatedtoclaimconstruction
[See:F.M.Gasparo,“Markmanv.WestviewInstruments,Inc.andits
ProceduralShockWave:theMarkmanHearing”,(1997)5J.L.&Pol’y723,atp.
767;andC.A.Nard,“IntellectualPropertyChallengesintheNextCentury:
ProcessConsiderationsintheAgeofMarkmanandMantras”,2001U.Ill.L.
Rev.355,atp.385.].Otherwise,thepotentialadvantagesofaseparatetrial
willbelostinawaveofappeals.
TheexperienceofAmericancourtsseemstoshowthattheobjectivessought
bytheFederalCourtofCanadainRealsearch,intermsofsavingsoftimeand
resourcesbyimplementingaseparatetrial,willnotnecessarilybeeasyto
meet.Itisonlyincaseswhereclaimconstructionresultsinadeterminationof
theabsenceofinfringementthattheMarkman-typeproceedingwillsurelybe
beneficialtopartiesinCanada.Also,ifthisproceedingbecomesmore
commonplaceinCanada,courtswillhavetobepreparedtoacceptand
disposeofmoreinterlocutoryjudgementsonclaimconstruction.Timeonly
willtellwhetherCanadiancourtswilladopttheprinciplessetoutin
Realsearch,andwhetherthistypeoforderwillbeusedeffectivelyin
Canadianpatentlitigation.
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2003
Publishedat(2003),17-10WorldIntellectualPropertyReport4-5underthetitleSeparateTrial
onClaimConstruction:IsMarkamWelcomeinCanada?Publication142.153.
ROBIC,ungrouped avocatsetd agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd origine;droitsd auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD