PATENTS
Infringement
Appeal from Federal Court judgment (2004 FC 88) dismissing patent infringement action; cross‑appeal from dismissal of counterclaim alleging patent invalidity—Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed—Although minor errors in statement of legal principles, not leading to incorrect result—Suggestion element essential if novel, inventive not in accordance with test stated in Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1024: element essential if required for device to work as contemplated, claimed by inventor— Judge also apparently confusing relationship between essential elements, variants—No error in construction of patent claims—Plaintiff’s patent invalid on basis of obviousness.
Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc. (A‑99‑04, 2006 FCA 275, The Court, judgment dated 8/8/06, 24 pp.)