Federal Court of Canada Orders Trial on Construction of Claims

1
FEDERALCOURTOFCANADAORDERSTRIALONCONSTRUCTIONOFCLAIMS

BobH.SotiriadisandAlexandraSteele*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com

TheFederalCourtofCanadarecentlyaddedanew“twist”toitsusually
restrictiveinterpretationofRule107oftheFederalCourtRules,1998by
grantinganOrderforaseparatedeterminationoftheissueofclaim
constructioninapatentcase.
InRealsearchInc.v.ValoneKoneBrunetteLtd.,(2003)F.C.T.669,May28,2003
(NoëlJ.),thePlaintiffhadcommencedanactionforpatentinfringement
againsttheDefendant.ThePlaintiff’spatentwasforamechanicaldevice
usedforremovingthebarkfromlogs.TheDefendantdeniedallallegationsof
infringementanditcounterclaimedforinvalidityofthePlaintiff’spatent.By
wayofaMotionforaBifurcationOrderunderRule107oftheFederalCourt
Rules,1998,theDefendantaskedtheCourtforaseparateandinitialhearing
onclaimconstruction,i.e.theinterpretationofthespecificclaimsinthe
Plaintiff’spatent.
Rule107oftheFederalCourtRules,1998allowsapartytoseekaseparation
oftheissuesinacase.ThemostcommonuseofthisprovisioninIntellectual
Propertymattersis,forexample,aseparationoftheissuesofliabilityofa
Defendantfromtheissueofdamagesand/orprofitsclaimedbyaPlaintifffor
infringement.Thisisanexceptionalanddiscretionaryrecourseandthe
FederalCourtrarelygrantssuchorderswithouttheconsentoftheparties.In
theabsenceofsuchconsent,themovingpartymustshowthatseveranceof
acasewilllikelyresultin“thejust,mostexpeditiousandleastexpensive
determinationofeveryproceedingonitsmerits”asheldinCIBA-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,

©CIPS,2003.*OfLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trademarkagents.PublishedintheSpring2003issue(Vol.7,No.2)issueofourNewsletter.
Publication068.055E.

2
confirmedthatclaimconstructionnecessarilyprecedestheinquiriesintothe
issuesofvalidity,infringementanddamages/profitsinapatentaction.In
otherwords,theCourtmustfirstinterprettheclaimsofthepatent,thenrule
onthevalidityofthepatentandproceedtotheanalysisoftheinfringing
device.Claimconstructionhasoftenbeenreferredtoasconstitutingthe
“firsttaskoftheCourt”inpatentinfringementcases.
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.
ItshouldbenotedthatthiscasereferstotheU.S.“Markman”type
proceeding:intheUnitedStates,patentcasescanbetriedbyajury.Inthe
matterofMarkmanv.WestwiewInstrumentsInc.,(1996)52F.3d967,affirmed
116S.Ct.1384,itwasdecidedthatclaimconstructionisamatteroflaw,not
offact,andthereforetheCourtmustfirstdeterminewhatapatentcovers
beforethequestionofinfringementissubmittedtothejury.InCanada,
despitethefactthatnocasesaretriedbyjuryintheFederalCourt,a
separateandearlydeterminationofthescopeoftheclaimscouldproveto
beeffectiveinadvancingpatentlitigationinsomecases.
Atfirstglance,theseparatedeterminationdoesnotappeareithercostor
timeeffectivesincetheseparateconstructionoftheclaimsrequiresafull
(andcostly!)trial.Ontheotherhand,theseparatedeterminationofclaim
constructionmayopenthedoortoadditionalsummaryjudgement
proceedings,when,forexample,constructionoftheclaimsshowsthatthere
wouldbenoinfringementandthereforenogenuineissuefortrial.Asthe
Courtnoted,ifsettlementpossibilitiesareincreasedbyearlyconstructionof
thepatentclaims,thentheBifurcationOrderhasreacheditsobjective.It
remainstobeseenwhat“early”willmeaninpracticaltermsandhowthe
FederalCourtwilldealwiththistypeofrequestinthefutureasitwillmostlikely
alwaysbeanissuethatisdecidedonacasebycasebasis.

3

4
ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaquailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentand
trademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthe
valorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsand
utilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;
copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;
computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competition
andanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,
distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.
Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD