Federal Court of Canada – Orders Trial on Construction of Claims
1
FEDERALCOURTOFCANADA–ORDERSTRIALONCONSTRUCTIONOFCLAIMS
by
BobH.SotiriadisandAexandraSteele
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
TheFederalCourtofCanadarecentlyaddedanew“twist”toitsusually
restrictiveinterpretationofRule107oftheFederalCourtRules(1998)by
grantinganOrderforaseparatedeterminationoftheissueofclaim
constructioninapatentcase.
InRealsearchInc.v.ValonKoneBrunetteLtd.,(2003)F.C.T.669,May28,2003
(NoëlJ.),thePlaintiffhadcommencedanactionforpatentinfringement
againsttheDefendant.ThePlaintiff’spatentwasforamechanicaldevice
usedforremovingthebarkfromlogs.TheDefendantdeniedallallegationsof
infringementanditcounterclaimedforinvalidityofthePlaintiff’spatent.By
wayofaMotionforaBifurcationOrderunderRule107FederalCourtRules
(1998),theDefendantaskedtheCourtforaseparateandinitialhearingon
claimconstruction,i.e.theinterpretationofthespecificclaimsinthePlaintiff’s
patent.
Rule107FederalCourtRules(1998)allowsapartytoseekaseparationofthe
issuesinacase.ThemostcommonuseofthisprovisioninIntellectualProperty
mattersis,forexample,aseparationoftheissuesofliabilityofaDefendant
fromtheissueofdamagesand/orprofitsclaimedbythePlaintifffor
infringement.Thisisanexceptionalanddiscretionaryrecourseandthe
FederalCourtrarelygrantssuchorderswithouttheconsentoftheparties.In
theabsenceofsuchconsent,themovingpartymustshowthatseveranceof
acasewilllikelyresultin“thejust,mostexpeditiousandleastexpensive
determinationoftheeveryproceedingonitsmerits”asheldin(CIBA-Geigy
CanadaLtd.v.NovopharmLtd,(2001),14C.P.R.(4
th)491).
TheSupremeCourtdecisionsinWhirlpoolCorp.v.CamcoInc.,[2000]2S.C.R.
1067andFreeWorldTrustv.ElectroSanteInc.,(2000),9C.P.R.(4
th)168,
confirmedthatclaimconstructionnecessarilyprecedestheinquiriesintothe
issuesofvalidity,infringementanddamages/profitsinapatentaction.In
otherwords,theCourtmustfirstinterprettheclaimsofthepatent,thenrule
2
onthevalidityofthepatentandproceedtotheanalysisoftheinfringing
device.Claimconstructionhasoftenbeenreferredtoasconstitutingthe
“firsttaskoftheCourt”inapatentinfringementcases.
ReturningtotheRealsearchcasementionedabove,theDefendants
pleadedthat“earlyclaimconstructionwillreducethedurationofdiscovery,
increasethelikelihoodofsettlement,providethe“publicnotificationfunction
ofpatents”,andreduce“litigationchill”sufferedbythedefendants”.After
hearingthepartiesandreviewingtheevidence,theCourtconcludedthatby
construingtheclaimsearlyinthelitigation,thePlaintiff’sargumenton
infringement,andtheDefendant’sargumentofinvalidity,couldbe
strengthenedorweakened.Sinceitappearedtobebeneficialforallparties
tohavetheclaimsconstruedfirst,theCourtorderedaseparatetrialonthe
issueofclaimconstruction.
ItshouldbenotedthatthiscasereferstotheUS“Markman”typeproceeding;
intheUnitedStates,patentcasescanbetriedbyajury.Inthematterof
Markmanv.WestwiewInstrumentsInc.,(1996)52F.(3d)967,affirmed116
S.C.T.1384,itwasdecidedthatclaimconstructionisamatteroflaw,notof
fact,andthereforetheCourtmustfirstdeterminewhatapatentcovers
beforethequestionofinfringementissubmittedtothejury.InCanada,
despitethefactthatnocasesaretriedbyjuryintheFederalCourt,a
separateandearlydeterminationofthescopeoftheclaimscouldproveto
beeffectiveinadvancingpatentlitigationinsomecases.
Atfirstglance,theseparatedeterminationdoesnotappeareithercostor
timeeffectivesincetheseparateconstructionoftheclaimsrequiresafull
(andcostly!)trial.Ontheotherhand,theseparatedeterminationclaim
constructionmayopenthedoortoadditionalsummaryjudgement
proceedings,when,forexample,constructionoftheclaimsshowsthatthere
wouldbenoinfringementandthereforenogenuineissuefortrial.Asthe
Courtnoted,ifsettlementpossibilitiesareincreasedbyearlyconstructionof
thepatentclaims,thentheBifurcationOrderhasreacheditsobjective.It
remainstobeseenwhat“early”willmeaninpracticaltermsandhowthe
FederalCourtwilldealwiththistypeofrequestinthefutureasitwillmostlikely
alwaysbeanissuethatisdecidedonacasebycasebasis.
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2003.
Publishedat(2003),17-9WorldIntellectualPropertyReport5underthetitleSeparateTrialon
ClaimConstructionOrderedinPatentInfringementCase.Publication142.159.
3
4
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