Lames Nordik (Usinage Pro-24) c. Hamel, 2023 QCCA 874
2023-07-03
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
This appeal relates to a judgment [see 2021 QCCS 3405] ... which partially granted the request for a permanent injunction by the respondents ... since it infringes Canadian patent 1,243,830 held by the respondents. The judge also declares said patent valid. ... The main issue raised by this appeal is whether the Nordik Move system falls within the claim of the '830 patent, once properly construed. ... For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the Nordik Move system does not fall within the scope of the claim of the '830 patent when it is correctly construed. ... The fundamental error that transcends her decision as a whole, according to the appellants, is based on the fact that the judge based her reasoning on the objective, result or end of the invention rather than on the means of achieving it. In doing so, the court erred in identifying the essential elements that make up the claim and incorrectly applied the Improver test, which led it to disregard the clear content of the claim, thus creating a situation of unpredictability. This Court finds that the appellants are right, both as regards the elements forming the upper part of the invention claimed in paragraph iii. than the snow deflector, an element described on its own in paragraph ii. of the claim. (based on a translation)