Jurisprudence récente: propriété de brevet et bris d’entente de confidentialité

Voir Aram Systems Ltd. v. NovAtel Inc., 2009 ABCA 262

Les faits:

[1]               The appellant ARAM Systems Ltd. (Aram) is in the business of designing and manufacturing seismic data acquisition equipment. The respondent NovAtel Inc. (NovAtel) designs and manufactures customized global positioning system (GPS) devices for incorporation by its customers into specialized equipment. Patrick Fenton (Fenton) is the chief technology officer of NovAtel. Norman David Heidebrecht (Heidebrecht) is the former engineering manager of Aram.

 [2]               Aram and NovAtel dispute the ownership of a patent issued to NovAtel on October 3, 2006, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Patent). Aram claims that NovAtel wrongfully derived the Patent from Heidebrecht, who communicated his idea to NovAtel and Fenton at a meeting on June 18, 2003 (June 18 Meeting). Aram further claims that NovAtel breached a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) entered into by the parties at the June 18 Meeting as well as its duty of confidentiality. NovAtel counterclaims in respect of both the Patent ownership and alleged breach of the NDA by Aram.

 [3]               Aram appeals the trial judge’s conclusions that: Heidebrecht was neither the inventor nor the co-inventor of the Patent; NovAtel and Fenton did not breach the NDA or their duty of confidentiality; and Aram breached the NDA.

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: