Denharco Inc. v. Forespro Inc.
T-1868-98
Dubé J.
2/6/99
6 pp.
In patent infringement action relating to forestry equipment, plaintiff seeking particulars in respect of certain paragraphs of defence and counterclaim-Motion allowed-Paragraphs alleging patent claims invalid as ambiguous and not stating distinctly object of invention-Not sufficient-Defendant must show in what respect specific elements of claim ambiguous and provide factual basis-Paragraphs alleging claims of patents claim more than described in description but providing no particulars as to matter alleged to be claimed but not described in description-More specific facts needed-Paragraphs alleging claims of patents claim more than what inventor invented without providing any particulars as to exactly what not invented by inventor but appearing in claims-More particulars needed-Paragraphs alleging patents invalid as failing to correctly and fully describe invention without providing any particulars as to where and how description so failing-Defendant must show failure-Paragraphs alleging patents invalid as not describing best mode for carrying out invention but providing no particulars as to manner in which description failing to describe best mode-More particulars required-According to broadly accepted functions of particulars as set out in Supreme Court Practice, defendant may not limit allegations to general terms, or borrow language of legislation and follow with bald statement that other party has not fulfilled requirements of legislation-Functions of particulars to prevent other side from being taken by surprise and thus to inform it of nature of case it has to meet so as to better prepare itself for trial-Particulars compel parties to circumscribe case within limited field-Court perplexed as to why parties persist in holding their cards so close to chest-Eventually, they will have to come clean, either at discovery or at trial-So why not do it now so as to expedite litigation and to better husband their resources as well as those of Court.