Une jurisprudence en contrefaçon de brevets de la Cour fédérale qui ne traite pas de médicaments

Cette décision peut être utile pour étudier les différents concepts (interprétation des revendications, contrefaçon, nouveauté, non-évidence, etc.) au vu de la récente décision de la Cour suprême dans l’affaire Sanofi:

Uview Ultraviolet Systems Inc. v. Brasscorp Ltd., 2009 FC 58, (March 3, 2009)

 http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc58/2009fc58.html

Voici les points adressés dans la décision:

[34]           The plaintiff summarized the issues as follows:

1.         Who is the person skilled in the art?

 

2.         Does the REVOLVER product as sold by the Defendant, and/or used in the manner directed by the Defendant, infringe any of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 or 16 of the ‘673 patent and/or any of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20 or 38 of the ‘024 patent?

 

3.         Does the DYE STICK product as sold by the Defendant, and/or used in the manner directed by the Defendant, infringe any of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 or 16 of the ‘673 patent and/or any of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 or 9 of the ‘024 patent?

 

4.         Does the RETRO STICK product as sold by the Defendant, and/or used in the manner directed by the Defendant incorporate the invention claimed in any of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 or 10 of the ‘673 patent?

5.         Does the agreement between the Defendant and Spectronics provide the Defendant with a defence to infringement of the ‘673 or ‘024 patent in respect of the REVOLVER injectors and REVOLVER cartridges obtained from suppliers by Spectronics and then provided by Spectronics to the Defendant pursuant to the terms of the agreement?

 

6.         Are any of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 or 16 of the ‘673 patent invalid on the basis that:

 

(a)        The claim is anticipated by the Quest reference;

 

(b)        Claim 14 is anticipated by the Bradley, Classic or Robinair references respectively;

 

(c)        The claim is obvious as a result of the references and common general knowledge identified by the Defendant’s experts;

 

(d)        The claim is over broad or lacking utility as a result of the failure to specify a means for retaining the piston in the cylinder;

 

(e)        the application that issued into the ‘673 patent failed to comply with section 37 due to a lack of drawings in the specification;

 

(f)         The Plaintiff failed to comply with section 73(1)(a) of the Patent Act in view of the fact that the Plaintiff filed minutes from a hearing before the EPO in respect of the corresponding European application; or

 

(g)        The ‘673 patent is void pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Patent Act on the basis that:

 

            the petition contains an untrue material allegation, namely          that Michael Kroll and Phil Trigiani were the owners of the             invention; or

 

            as a result of the omission of drawings of the apparatus in          the specification, it contains more or less than is necessary for         obtaining the end for they purported to be made.

 

7.         Are any of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 or 38 of the ‘024 patent invalid on the basis that:

(a)        The subject-matter defined by the claim is not patentably distinct from the subject-matter defined by any of the claims in the ‘673 patent;

 

(b)        In respect of any of claims 1, 5, 6, 7 or 9, the claim was anticipated by Canadian patent application no. 2,252,329;

 

(c)        In respect of any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 17, 20, 21 or 38, the subject-matter defined by the claim was anticipated by the Quest, Classic or Robinair references respectively;

 

(d)        The claim is obvious as a result of the references and common general knowledge identified by the Defendant’s experts;

 

(e)        The claim is ambiguous as a result of the use of the term “release valve”?

 

8.         Is the Defendant liable for infringement or inducing infringement of the identified claims of the ‘673 patent or the ‘024 patent?

 

9.         Is the Plaintiff liable for making false and misleading statements contrary to section 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act?

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: