• Decision Refusing to Strike Inducement to Induce Infringement Allegations Affirmed
  • August 2, 2017 | Authors: Beverley Moore; Jillian Brenner
  • Law Firm: Borden Ladner Gervais LLP - Ottawa Office
  • Elbit Systems Electro-optics Elop Ltd. v. Selex ES Ltd., 2016 FC 1129

    In this recently reported decision, the Court dismissed an appeal of the Prothonotary's decision dismissing in part the Defendant's motion to strike portions of the statement of claim. In the underlying action, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant has, or will imminently infringe its patent, but also that the Defendant is inducing or procuring the infringement of the patent by a third party and the Canadian Government. Further, the plaintiff alleged that the third party has or will consequently induce infringement by the Government of Canada. The Defendant is a subcontractor of the third party, the prime contractor, which was awarded the upgrade contract from the Government of Canada. Neither the third party nor the Canadian Government were named as defendants, even though allegations were made that they both have or will directly infringe the patent.

    The Court concluded that the Prothonotary did not err in law or make any palpable and overriding error in refusing to strike the impugned paragraphs, including those concerning inducement to induce infringement.