Proslide Technology, Inc v. Whitewater West Industries, Ltd, 2024 FC 1439
Justice Manson - 2024-09-13
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
ProSlide Technology brings an action against WhiteWater West Industries alleging infringement of [four patents]. WhiteWater defends the action and brings a counterclaim alleging that the asserted claims of the ProSlide Patents are invalid. ... Where a patent claims a physical object, the patentee’s exclusive rights under section 42 of the Patent Act to “use” the invention extend only to that object. They do not also include the use of conceptual designs or drawings of that object (Steelhead at paras 70-72). ... I agree with WhiteWater that the AquaSphere’s ride path is predetermined. ... Accordingly, only claim 20 of the 601 Patent may be infringed, if valid. None of the asserted claims in any of the 552 Patents or the remaining claims asserted in the 601 Patent are infringed. ... First, aside from disclosure, the test for overbreadth is concerned with what was made or contemplated, not simply what was physically built, as Mr. Diamond’s position suggests. Although the latter serves as a good indicator of the former, it is not an exclusive measure of the actual invention. ... I find that a water slide feature has a scintilla of utility if it is demonstrated or soundly predicted that a rider would enter, traverse, and exit the feature. ... There was simply nothing with which Mr. Hunter could infer that a rider would be able to enter and exit the features of the 601 Asserted Claims. His line of reasoning that a rider would be able to do so was at best speculative. ... Therefore, all of the 552 Asserted Claims are overbroad.
Decision relates to:
- T-1449-20 - Proslide Technology, Inc. v. Whitewater West Industries, Ltd.