Rivard Instruments Inc. v. Ideal Instruments Inc.
Source text
Rivard Instruments Inc. v. Ideal Instruments Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-08-29 Neutral citation 2007 FC 870 File numbers T-1113-04 Decision Content Date: 20070829 Docket: T-1113-04 Citation: 2007 FC 870 Ottawa , Ontario , August 29, 2007 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen BETWEEN: RIVARD INSTRUMENTS INC. Plaintiff and IDEAL INSTRUMENTS INC. Defendant REASONS FOR ORDER (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa , Ontario , on August 29, 2007) [1] I am going to dismiss this motion for summary judgment brought by the defendant. [2] In my view there is clearly a genuine issue for trial in this case. [3] The plaintiff holds a patent for a magnetically detectable cannula, apparently used in the meat packing industry, so as to detect broken hypodermic needles in meat which is being prepared for human consumption. [4] The relevant claim is for a cannula composed in part of ferritic stainless steel. [5] The defendant moving for summary judgment says that its cannula is made not of ferritic stainless steel but of duplex stainless steel. [6] The plaintiff’s expert witness says that duplex stainless steel, is itself a composition, one of whose components is ferritic stainless steel, and that that component or “phase” as he calls it, is separately detectable by microscopic analysis of the final product. [7] That opinion appears to be disagreed with by the defendant’s expert witness apparently basing himself on what he considers to be a definition of the wo…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Rivard Instruments Inc. v. Ideal Instruments Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-08-29 Neutral citation 2007 FC 870 File numbers T-1113-04 Decision Content Date: 20070829 Docket: T-1113-04 Citation: 2007 FC 870 Ottawa , Ontario , August 29, 2007 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen BETWEEN: RIVARD INSTRUMENTS INC. Plaintiff and IDEAL INSTRUMENTS INC. Defendant REASONS FOR ORDER (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa , Ontario , on August 29, 2007) [1] I am going to dismiss this motion for summary judgment brought by the defendant. [2] In my view there is clearly a genuine issue for trial in this case. [3] The plaintiff holds a patent for a magnetically detectable cannula, apparently used in the meat packing industry, so as to detect broken hypodermic needles in meat which is being prepared for human consumption. [4] The relevant claim is for a cannula composed in part of ferritic stainless steel. [5] The defendant moving for summary judgment says that its cannula is made not of ferritic stainless steel but of duplex stainless steel. [6] The plaintiff’s expert witness says that duplex stainless steel, is itself a composition, one of whose components is ferritic stainless steel, and that that component or “phase” as he calls it, is separately detectable by microscopic analysis of the final product. [7] That opinion appears to be disagreed with by the defendant’s expert witness apparently basing himself on what he considers to be a definition of the words ferritic stainless steel in the disclosure. [8] Whether or not he is right in that pretention I do not think it appropriate for me to comment.Equally I do not think it appropriate for me to comment on whether or not the plaintiff’s expert witness is correct. [9] Clearly the two experts conflict.Both were cross-examined at some length.Neither resiled from his opinion.That seems to me is the classic circumstance in which the Court ought not to grant summary judgment and I would cite Trojan Technologies, Inc. v. Suntec Environment Inc. (2004) 31 C.P.R. (4th) 241 (F.C.A.) as a sufficient authority for that proposition. [10] Accordingly the case must go to trial. [11] The motion for summary judgment will be dismissed with costs. “James K. Hugessen” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1113-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: RIVARD INSTRUMENTS INC. v. IDEAL INSTRUMENTS INC. PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa , Ontario DATE OF HEARING: August 29, 2007 REASONS FOR ORDER: HUGESSEN J. DATED: August 29, 2007 APPEARANCES: Terrance J. McManus FOR THE PLAINTIFF Scott Maidment FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: MILTON, GELLER LLP OTTAWA , ONTARIO FOR THE PLAINTIFF MCMILLAN BINCH MENDLESOHN LLP TORONTO , ONTARIO FOR THE DEFENDANT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Démocratie en surveillance c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 75