Pleading Patent Infringement in Canada: Lessons and Advice from the Federal Court

2012-01-01

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC
2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

PLEADINGPATENTINFRINGEMENTINCANADA:LESSONSANDADVICE
FROMTHEFEDERALCOURT

A.
SASHAMANDY*
ROBIC,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

Whensuingapartyforinfringingapatent,whatmustbeallegedinthestatementof
claim?Bertelsenv.AutomatedTankManufacturingInc.2011FC1219answersthis
question.Insodoing,JusticeO’KeefeoftheFederalCourtofCanadaupholdsa
longlineofcaselawandremindslitigantsofthedangerofinsufficientlypleading
theircase.

Thiscaseisofobviousimportancetopatentlitigators,butitsteachingsapplyto
litigationsofallstripesbeforetheFederalCourt.Itmayalsobeofinteresttopatent
agentsandpractitioners,whowillbetterunderstandwhatisrequiredofthemwhen
oneoftheirlitigatorcolleaguesasksforassistanceinpreparinganactionfor
infringement.

TheFacts

LarryBertelsen,theplaintiff,filedsuitintheFederalCourtviaastatementofclaim
onAugust4,2010.Bertelsenallegedthatthedefendant,AutomatedTank
ManufacturingInc.,infringedCanadianpatentNo.2,479,412.The‘412patent
containsonlytwoclaims,bothofwhichareindependent.Claim1isdirectedtoa
methodoffabricatingatallmulti-stageworkpiece,andclaim2isdirectedtoa
fabricationstationforamulti-stageworkpiece.

Bertelsen’sstatementofclaimwassubsequentlyamendedthreetimes.Thelastof
theseamendmentsoccurredwiththepermissionofaProthonotary.Itisthedecision
oftheProthonotarytowhichAutomatedTankobjects,andthatisthesubjectofthis
appealbeforetheFederalCourt.AutomatedTankalsoasksthatcertainessential
paragraphsofthestatementofclaim(i.e.thosealleginginfringementofthe‘412
patent’stwoclaims)bestruckwithoutpermissiontoamendandthatBertelsen’s
actionbedismissed.

©CIPS,2012.*OfROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.Publishedat
(January2012),26:01WorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.2567

The
FederalCourtRulesrequirethatall“actions”broughtbeforetheFederalCourt
(whichdifferfrom“applications”or“appeals”)aretobeintroducedbyfilinga
statementofclaim.Thestatementofclaimmustfollowapreciseformat,andmust
beginwithalistingofthereliefsoughtfollowedbyconsecutivelynumbered
paragraphsthatsetouteachallegationofmaterialfactreliedontosubstantiatethe
claim.
ThisappealturnsontheinterpretationofRule174oftheFederalCourtRules,which
governsthepleadingofmaterialfactsinanystatementofclaim:
174.Everypleadingshallcontainaconcisestatementofthematerialfactson
whichthepartyrelies,butshallnotincludeevidencebywhichthosefactsareto
beproved.

TheFederalCourtJudgement
JusticeO’Keefebeganhisanalysisbyaddressingtheapplicablestandardwhen
reviewingdecisionsoftheProthonotary.TheFederalCourthadalreadyaddressed
thisquestioninHarrisonvSterlingLumberCo2008FC220,[2008]FCJNo270,
andJusticeO’Keefeadopteditsreasons.JusticeO’Keefeheldthatthedenovo
standardappliestothisappeal(i.e.theFederalCourtowesnodeferencetothe
decisionoftheProthonotaryandcansubstituteitsownopinion)becausethe
presentcasedealswith“thestrikingoftheoperativepartsofthestatementofclaim.”

The“operativeparts”towhichJusticeO’Keeferefersareparagraphs9to13,and15
ofthethrice-amendedstatementofclaim.Paragraphs9and10allegeinfringement
ofthemethodandproductclaims,respectively.Iftheseparagraphsweretobe
struck,thestatementofclaimwouldnolongercontainallegationsofinfringement
andwouldthusbedismissed.ThisexplainsJusticeO’Keefe’sholdingthat“thisisa
matterthatisvitaltothefinalissueinthecase.”

JusticeO’Keefethenlookedattheissueofwhetherparagraphs9and10contained
thenecessaryfactstomakeoutanallegationofpatentinfringement,orwhether
theywereimpermissiblyspeculative.AutomatedTankarguedthatBertelsensimply
repeatedthewordsoftheclaimstoproveinfringement.Paragraphs9and10read
asfollows:9.TheDefendanthassinceadatethatisunknowntothePlaintiffbutthat
isas[sic]leastasearlyasOctober,2008atKitscoty,Alberta,utilized
equipmentandmanufactured,constructed,madeandrepairedoilfield
storagetanksinmannerthatutilizesamethod:providingaverticalshaftextendingbelowgroundatapermanent
fabricationfacility;
suspendinganelevatorplatformintheshaftbycables,theelevator
platformbeingraisedandloweredintheshaftbywincheswhich
controlalengthofthecablestolowertheelevatorplatformandraise
theelevatorplatformintheshaft;

providingatleastoneabovegroundworkstationat
theupperendof
theshaft;
placingaworkpieceonamotordrivenrotatingturntableonthe
elevatorplatform;
activatingthemotordrivenrotatingturntabletorotatetheturntableas
requiredduringfabricationtopermitworkersaccesstoanentire
circumferenceoftheworkpiecewithoutmovingfromtheatleastone
abovegroundworkstation;
loweringtheelevatorplatformaseachstageoftheworkpieceis
completedinordertomaintainadesiredworkingheightforworkers
attheatleastoneabovegroundworkstation;and
raisingtheelevatorplatformandremovingtheworkpiecefromthe
elevatorplatformwhenfabricationiscomplete.
10.TheDefendanthas,sinceadatethatisunknowntothePlaintiffbut
thatisas[sic]leastasearlyasSeptember12,2007,constructedorused
afabricationstationforatallmulti-stageworkpieceincludingthe
manufacture,construction,makingandrepairofoilfieldstoragetanks,at
4601-49Avenue,Kitscoty,Albertaorotherlocationsunknowntothe
Plaintiffthatincludes:averticalshaftextendingbelowground;
anelevatorplatformsuspendedbycablesintheshaft,winchesbeing
providedtocontrolalengthofthecablestolowertheelevator
platformandlist[sic]theelevatorplatformintheshaft;

Theconstituentelementsofparagraphs9and10areidenticaltoclaims1and2,
respectively.
JusticeO’Keefelookedtotheauthoritiesregardingthesufficiencyofpatent
infringementpleadings.HecitedDowChemicalCovKaysonPlastics&Chemicals
Ltd(1996),47CPR1,whereitwasdecidedthatpatentinfringementpleadingsmust
containthefollowing:(a)factsbyvirtueofwhichthelawrecognizesadefinedrightas
belongingtotheplaintiff,and
(b)factsthatconstituteanencroachmentbythedefendantonthat
definedrightoftheplaintiff.

JusticeO’KeefecitedwithapprovalthefirstProthonotaryinthisfile,whooriginally
rejectedtheamendmentproposedbyBertelsenbutauthorisedhimtoapplyfor
leavetoamend:Aplaintiffmustdescribewithparticularitytherighttowhichheclaimsto
beentitledandwhichheallegeshasbeeninfringedbythedefendant.
Thisisparticularlyimportantinpatentinfringementactions,whichare
generallycomplexandtechnicalinnature.Theallegationsproposedby
thePlaintiffrelatingtoinfringementbytheDefendantsimplyreferbackto

theclaimsinthepatentatissue.Suchgeneralallegationsareinsufficient
andcannotbeallowed.

AswasstatedbyMr.JusticeJackettin
PrecisionMetalsmithsInc.v.
CercastInc.(1966),49C.P.R.234(Ex.Ct.)atpage242-243:“Itisnota
compliancewiththerequirementthatthematerialfactsbeallegedmerely
tostatetheconclusionsthattheCourtwillbeaskedtodraw…”The
Defendantisentitledtoknowwithprecisionwhatexactlyithasdonethat
isallegedtohaveinfringedtherightsofthePlaintiff.Beingsubstantiallyin
agreementwiththewrittensubmissionsfiledonbehalfoftheDefendant,I
concludethattheessentialelementsofacauseofactionforpatent
infringementhavenotbeenpleadedatparagraphs2,6and7ofthe
AmendedAmendedStatementofClaim.

JusticeO’Keefedismissedparagraphs9and10oftheStatementofClaim,holding
thattheyare“inessencearestatementoftheclaimsofthe‘412Patent”.They
thereforedonotpleadthefactsuponwhichaclaimforinfringementcanbebased,
andaredeficient.TheProthonotarythuserredinallowingtheproposed
amendments,andJusticeO’Keefestruckparagraphs9to13,and15withoutleave
toamend.HethendismissedBertelsen’sactionforinfringementwithcostsawarded
toAutomatedTank.

Conclusion

Thisdecisionwillnodoubtserveasacautionaryremindertopatentlitigatorsthat
theycannotblithelyallegeinfringementbyrepeatingverbatimtheelementsofthe
infringedclaims.Theplaintiffmustsetoutthespecificinfringingfactsthatthe
defendantisallegedtohavedone.

Failuretodosocanhavesevereconsequences,asillustratedinthepresentcase.
TheCourtwillnothesitatetodismissanimproperlypleadinfringementaction,with
costs.

Isthistheendofthisaffair?Probably.AlthoughcounselforBertelsenappealedto
theFederalCourtofAppealonOctober20,2011,theCourtdocketindicatesthat
theyfiledaletteronNovember22,2011advisingthattheywillbediscontinuingthe
appeal,andthattheyawaitthesignedconsentofopposingcounsel.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetse
tdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)