Case information

Intellectual property — Patents — Interpretation of claim — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal properly stated and applied currently applicable appellate standard of review with regard to interpretation of patent claims — Should interpretation of patent claims not be considered question of mixed fact and law to which corresponding appellate standard of review should be applied? — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal gave too much weight to “Improver test” in its interpretation of claim in question, and in doing so, whether it interpreted claim too literally in manner inconsistent with purposive approach adopted by Supreme Court in Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1024, and Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067 — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal could, on its own initiative, rule on permanent injunction order issued by special clerk André Belleau on September 19, 2005, considering that appellants before Quebec Court of Appeal had raised no ground of appeal regarding order in their brief — Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, s. 27.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2016, the applicants, Guy Hamel and 9125-6651 Québec inc., brought an action for an injunction and damages against the respondents, Nordik Blades or Usinage Pro-24 and Hugo Michel, amongst others. The action related to the infringement of Canadian patent 2423830 (Patent 830), held by the applicants. The applicants alleged that the “Nordik Move” scraper and wear blade system belonging to the respondents infringed Patent 830. This patent relates to the invention referred to as an “articulated scraper blade system”. This moving blade system is intended to be mounted to the front of a snowplow. This patent has only one claim and seeks to protect a system comprising several blades, each capable of being raised and lowered, automatically and independently, in response to obstacles encountered on the road. The Superior Court allowed in part the originating application. It declared Patent 830 valid as between the parties and it declared that the respondent Nordik Blades or Usinage Pro-24 had infringed it. The Superior Court also issued three permanent injunctions, including one ordering the respondent to not make, construct, use or sell to others to be used the systems known under the names “Lames Nordik” and “Nordik Move”. The Superior Court also dismissed the originating application against the respondent Mr. Michel personally with the exception of the injunctive conclusions sought against him in his capacity as representative. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the trial judgment.