On September 6th, 2016 the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a Federal Court decision finding Nova Chemicals Corporation (“Nova”) liable for infringement of a patent owned by The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) by Nova’s manufacture and sale of its SURPASS film-grade polymers (2016 FCA 216).
Steven Garland, Jeremy Want, Colin Ingram and Daniel Davies of Smart & Biggar acted as co-counsel on behalf of Dow in both the trial and on the appeal.
As previously reported, in public reasons for judgment issued on September 5, 2014, Justice O’Keefe of the Federal Court upheld the validity of Dow’s Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705 (the ‘705 Patent), and found that Nova’s SURPASS polymers infringed the patent. Dow’s ‘705 Patent relates to polyethylene compositions for use in, amongst other things, packaging applications. The compositions claimed in the patent comprise blends of two polymers with particular physical or mechanical characteristics. Dow sells such compositions under the name ELITE.
Nova appealed the decision of Justice O'Keefe on numerous grounds relating to claims construction, validity and infringement.
In upholding Justice O'Keefe's decision, the Court of Appeal emphasized that deference is owed to a trial judge in his appreciation of the evidence. The court emphasized that this includes the trial judge's appreciation of expert evidence that affects the construction of the patent, consistent with the Court of Appeal's recent decision to the same effect in Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company v Bayer Inc, 2015 FCA 116 (as reported previously).
The Court of Appeal ultimately held that Nova's grounds of appeal amounted to "no more than mere disagreements" with Justice O'Keefe's factual findings and assessments of the expert evidence. As Nova failed to demonstrate any error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact, the appeal was dismissed. A further trial on the quantum of compensation owed to Dow as a result of Nova’s infringement is scheduled for December, 2016.
For more information, please contact a member of our firm’s Litigation group.
The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.
Related Publications & Articles
-
Ghost in the machine: AI and patent protection
While there are arguments available that the current legal framework in Canada precludes the possibility of patenting AI-generated inventions (i.e., without any human input), it remains to be seen how...Read More -
All clear? The importance of trademark clearance searching in Canada
This article outlines the benefits of trademark searching, different types of searches, and specific Canadian considerations, emphasizing the importance of proactive trademark clearance.Read More -
Angelcare and Playtex seal another win against patent infringer Munchkin
On August 17, 2023, the Federal Court issued its decision in Angelcare Canada Inc. et al. v Munchkin Inc. et al. (2023 FC 1111) regarding the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to certain remedies for patent inf...Read More