Patents
Infringement
Plaintiffs alleging infringement of Canadian Patent No. 2282334 ('334 patent)—Plaintiff Bridgeview Manufacturing, defendant DuraTech Industries manufacturing own version of machine used for disintegrating baled crop material, respectively named Bale King, Balebuster 2650—Whether Balebuster’s right-hand discharge system infringing Bridgeview’s '334 patent—Law on patent construction, infringement, invalidity summarized, stated in Appendix A to reasons for judgment—Terms used in claim I of ‘334 patent to be given expanded meaning—Such construction considering full context of patent—Balebuster’s discharge system not infringing '334 patent—Person skilled in the art would not consider recognition of advantage in most cases of right-hand discharge in bale processor using gearbox to be novel—Bale processor Hesston BP20 prior art on claim date—'334 patent invalid for obviousness—Plaintiffs’ claim dismissed, defendants’ counterclaim allowed.
Bridgeview Manufacturing Inc. v. 931409 Alberta Ltd. (T-1554-05, 2009 FC 50, Campbell J., judgment dated January 20, 2009, 59 pp.)