Attention aux déclarations sur les brevets de vos compétiteurs: la Cour fédérale se penche sur un dossier de contrefaçon de brevets avec allégation de concurrence déloyale

Dans l’affaire Omeganutrel Inc. v. Food Systems Innovations Inc., 2006 FC 1023, (August 24, 2006), la Cour fédérale doit traiter un dossier dans lequel une partie défenderesse d’une action en contrefaçon de brevets en Cour supérieure de l’Ontario a institué une action en cour fédérale contre la partie demanderesse, pour chercher des dommages sous l’article 7a de la Loi sur les marques:

[2]               The events leading to this application are as follows.  On May 27, 2005, the plaintiffs commenced this Federal Court action wherein they seek redress from the Court under paragraph 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act for FSI’s dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements to the trade concerning the plaintiffs and their now patented technology (“ONI technology”).  The statements were disseminated in letters to the trade in which FSI, inter alia, allegedly threatened patent infringement proceedings if the recipients did not desist from the use of ONI technology or products made from its use. 

[3]               On January 19, 2006, the defendants commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court alleging that the plaintiff’s ONI technology infringes the University’s patent.  The Ontario action also includes allegation that ONI, a related ONI company, and a director of ONI owed a fiduciary duty to the University of Guelph, and that they breached their fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty and confidence.  The Ontario action claims the remedy of constructive trust and a tracing order for proceeds of the breach of these duties.  This action is at the pleadings stage, with a motion brought by FSI and the University of Guelph to strike the defendants’ counterclaim scheduled to be heard in October 2006.

[4]               On March 28, 2006, the defendant FSI filed a motion in this court for an Order, pursuant to section 50 of the Federal Court Rules, staying the proceeding. […]

[5]               Subsequently, on April 20, 2006, in response to an application brought by the plaintiffs, the Prothonotary rendered an order wherein, inter alia, she granted leave for the adding of the University of Guelph as a defendant to the action.  On April 27, 2006, the defendant University brought a motion pursuant to Rule 399 of the Federal Court Rules, seeking a reconsideration of the Order issued by the Prothonotary adding the University as party.

Dans le cas présent, la Cour fédérale maintient la décision du protonotaire. Une affaire à suivre…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: