Hamel c. Lames Nordik (Usinage Pro-24), 2021 QCCS 3405
2021-08-13
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants and the intervener infringed the Patent 830, filed March 31, 2003, published July 29, 2003 and issued February 10, 2004, by manufacturing, by selling and / or distributing an articulated levelling blade system ... the Tribunal concludes that the following elements are not essential to the claim of the 830 Patent ... The Court finds that the 830-Hamel Patent is valid [in the face of obviousness and anticipation]. ... In the Hamel Construction and DHP systems, an important variant has been added which is neither essential nor non-essential in the 830 patent in that it is completely absent. In addition to the fact that the Hamel Construction and DHP systems are positioned at the rear, the presence of this variant (interconnection) makes it a completely different system. ... The Tribunal finds that the essential elements of the 830 Patent claim are found in the Nordik system . Consequently, it is in infringement of the Patent 830 and the responsibility of Lames Nordik or Usinage Pro-24 is engaged. ... The Court considers that there is no reason to find abuse under Articles 51 and following CCP even if the allegations concerning the 715 Patent were the subject of a late withdrawal.