CA: jurisprudence récente en brevets: exemple d’un recours contre une compagnie chinoise

Glaston Services Ltd. Oy v. Horizon Glass & Mirror Ltd., 2010 FC 1191, (November 26, 2010) http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2010/2010fc1191/2010fc1191.html

Un jugement par défaut contre la compagnie locale et son fabriquant chinois.

+ un bon exemple pour les examens d’agents sur les principes de contrefaçon: est-ce qu’un test au Canada pour prouver le fonctionnement une machine  fabriquée en Chine et pour faire accepter la machine par l’acheteur (“acceptance test”) est un acte de contrefaçon de la part de la compagnie chinoise? Voici la réponse de la Cour fédérale:

[82]            Glaston submits that it was an infringement for Shanghai Northglass to install and commission the North Glass Machinery at Horizon’s premises in Canada. Under the Contract, Shanghai Northglass was required to have two to three technicians attend at Horizon for 60 workdays in order to install and commission the equipment.  By installing and commissioning the North Glass Machinery in Canada, Shanghai Northglass made and constructed an apparatus covered by the claims of the Glaston ‘257 and ‘628 Patents.

[83]           Glaston further submits that Shanghai Northglass is liable for infringement for using the North Glass Machinery at Horizon’s premises.  The “Acceptance Test” required under the Contract required Shanghai Northglass’s technicians to continuously produce three (3) different glass products for two to eight hours each.  It is admitted that Shanghai Northglass performed acceptance tests of the North Glass Machinery at the Horizon premises in Canada.  The logical inference from this admitted fact is that Shanghai Northglass itself operated the bending and tempering station of the North Glass Machinery to produce bent and tempered glass in Canada and, thereby, used an apparatus covered by the claims of both patents, and practicing the methods covered by the claims of the ‘257 Patent. With respect to use for the purpose of furthering a business interest, in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902 (Monsanto Canada Inc) at para. 37, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

As a practical matter, inventors are normally deprived of the fruits of their invention and the full enjoyment of their monopoly when another person, without licence or permission, uses the invention to further a business interest.  Where the defendant’s impugned activities furthered its own commercial interests, we should therefore be particularly alert to the possibility that the defendant has committed an infringing use.

 [84]            The “use” of the North Glass Machinery by Shanghai Northglass in the Acceptance Tests occurred in a commercial context.  Shanghai Northglass ran the Acceptance Test for the purpose of concluding the sale of the North Glass Machinery to Horizon.  Shanghai Northglass has therefore committed an infringing use of the North Glass Machinery in Canada, therefore infringing the Glaston Canadian ‘257 and ‘628 Patents.

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: