Digests

Trojan Technologies, Inc. v. Suntec Environmental

T-1811-01

2003 FC 825, Gibson J.

7/3/03

46 pp.

Motion for summary judgment--Plaintiff, Trojan Technologies, Inc. (Trojan), Ontario corporation--Carries on business of research and development, manufacture, sale, installation, servicing and provision of consulting services for water treatment systems utilizing ultraviolet radiation--Trojan owner of Canadian Letters Patent 1327877 (patent in suit) issued on March 22, 1994 for invention of Jan Maarschalkerweerd entitled "Fluid Purification Device"-- Defendant Suntec Environmental Inc. (Suntec) incorporated under laws of Canada carrying on business of manufacture, sale, installation and servicing of water disinfection system and devices using ultraviolet light--Also carries on business, through affiliates or related companies, in United States and Japan--Trojan applied for patent in suit on August 16, 1989 and claims priority date of September 13, 1988 based upon filing of equivalent U.S. patent application--Application asserts 65 claims--Issues: (1) general principles governing motions for summary judgment; (2) ownership and validity of patent in suit; and (3) whether Suntec infringed patent in suit--(1) Principles governing determination of motion for summary judgment not in dispute--Gibson J. adopting principles summarized in Apotex Inc. v. Canada, [2003] F.C.J. No. 593--(2) Regarding construction of patent in suit, claims of patent as well as disclosure, directed to skilled worker and must be construed by mind willing to understand, not desirous of misunderstanding--Patent should be given purposive construction rather than purely literal one derived from applying meticulous analysis to patent--Recourse to disclosure of patent to aid interpretation of claims, while permissible to assist in understanding terms used in claims, is unnecessary if words of claims plain and unambiguous and improper to vary scope or ambit of claims--Relevant date for construing patent date of issuance--Regarding interpretation of claims 36 and 42 of patent, only dispute as to meaning of "an electrical lead wire" and "a ballast incorporated in said frame" in claim 36 and highlighted word "including" in claim 42--"An electrical lead wire" meaning any combination of such common electrical conducting wire and other conductive means that would achieve same result or either such wire alone or other conductive means alone; "a ballast incorporated in said frame" to include ballast incorporated "with" frame by any means of attachment; and word "including" meaning "treat or regard as part as whole"--Preferred embodiment of patent in suit falls entirely within claims 36 and 42 of patent in suit and thus within scope of claims dependent on claims 36 and 42--Date of invention relevant both for purpose of assessing obviousness and inventorship--Trojan failed to establish, on material before Court, on balance of probabilities and by cogent evidence, date of invention earlier than priority date accorded in patent in suit--Provisions of former Patent Act apply for purposes of present litigation--Turning to analysis of evidence before Court with respect to each of bases asserted on behalf of Suntec in support of defence of invalidity--First, regarding anticipation, evidence sufficient to conclude U.S. patent relied on by Suntec to show anticipation not containing such clear direction that skilled person reading and following patent "would in every case and without possibility of error" be led to invention claimed in claim 36 of patent in suit--Secondly, concerning obviousness, Suntec failed to discharge onus to establish notional technician, void of inventiveness, but skilled in relevant art, would, in light of state of art and of common general knowledge at date of invention disclosed by patent in suit, have come directly and without difficulty to solution taught by patent--Third, regarding inventorship, Suntec failed to establish inventor of invention disclosed by patent in suit is other than Jan Maarschalkerweerd--(3) As to infringement, issue is, on "purposive construction rather than purely literal one", whether "pith and marrow" of patent in suit, and more particularly claims 36 and 42 thereof, have been taken in design and construction of Suntec's ultraviolet water disinfection system--Evidence not establishing Suntec's system manufactured, offered for sale or sold in Canada-- None of three variants relied on by Suntec in relation to its system, or indeed all of them taken together, sufficient to take its system outside claims of patent in suit--Variances comprised in Suntec system would have been obvious at date of publication of patent in suit to reader skilled in art and such reader would not have understood from language of claims 36 and 42 that patentee intended strict compliance with elements of those claims that are contrasted with variances were essential requirements of invention--Against summary judgment principles, Trojan's claims in this action, present no genuine issue for trial, and outcome with respect to those issues not deserving further consideration at trial--Necessary facts can be found and no serious issue of credibility--Patent in suit, and more particularly claims 36 and 42 and claims dependent thereon, valid--Priority date claimed in respect of patent in suit earliest date that may be relied on by Trojan--Patent in suit not void by reason of anticipation or obviousness and Mr. Jan Maarschalkerweerd properly identified as inventor of invention disclosed by patent in suit--Finally, patent in suit and claims 36, 38 and 42 which are dependent thereon, and claim 42 and claims 46, 47, 61, 64 and 65 which are dependent thereon, infringed by Suntec-- Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4.