Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

PATENTS

Infringement

Lapierre v. Équipements d'Érablière C.D.L. Inc.

T-2371-00

2004 FC 552, Blanchard J.

8/4/04

26 pp.

Action alleging defendant infringed Canadian patent no. 1274781 (patent) by manufacturing, selling maple sap concentrators having characteristics described in claim 1 of patent--Patent concerns device used to concentrate maple sap by reverse osmosis--Donald Lapierre, inventor and owner of patent, granted oral, non-exclusive licence, free of charge, to plaintiff company for purposes of manufacturing, selling, distributing maple sap concentrator described in claim 1 of patent (Lapierre concentrator)--Defendant distribution company for products marketed to maple syrup producers-- Martin Chabot, defendant's operations manager, developed "La Fendeuse" reverse osmosis maple sap concentrator with centrifugal pump circulation mechanism and membrane-- Whether following elements of claim essential: (1) centrifugal pump with 360-degree radial discharge, and (2) direction of flow of fluid in circulation path within pressure vessel-- Principles of claim construction reviewed, applied--Burden of plaintiffs to prove two elements in question, which not found in La Fendeuse, non-essential--Plaintiffs not meeting burden of proving no effects in terms of operation of variant--Evidence as a whole, on balance of probabilities, establishing variant has material effect on way invention described in patent works --Plaintiff's expert, person skilled in art, familiar with variant at date of publication of patent in 1990, testified variant more efficient than patented system-- His opinion accepted--Consequently, person skilled in art would have concluded variant had material effect on way invention works--Person skilled in art would nonetheless have concluded, on reading language of claim, that patentee believed strict compliance with meaning of words chosen essential requirement of invention--Two elements subject of this infringement action essential elements of invention described in patent--Since those elements not present in variant, no possibility of infringement--Action dismissed.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.