Patent Infringement Claim Dismissed After Summary Trial - Cascade Corporation v. Kinshofer Gmbh Et Al., 2016 FC 1117

This case is an example of how the Federal Court's summary trial rule can be used to allow the Court to construe a patent and adjudicate a patent infringement claim efficiently and effectively in the face of a genuine issue of claims construction. The case involved a patent for a "quick coupler" for attaching buckets and other implements to the arm of an excavator. The quick coupler at issue includes a safety lock for retaining the front pin of the implement in addition to a main hydraulic locking mechanism for locking the back pin of the implement. At issue was the meaning of the limitation that the safety lock be released "using a hydraulic circuit which operates independently of the hydraulic locking mechanism of the mounting portion."

Through cooperation between counsel, a summary trial procedure and schedule were agreed upon and submitted to the Court for approval after documentary discovery but before any oral examinations for discovery were conducted. Issues regarding damages were bifurcated. The Court fully accommodated the parties requested procedure and schedule:

The procedure and schedule provided for the fact evidence to be adduced by way of affidavits in chief and cross-examinations out of Court. As the fact witnesses were located in Germany, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, in order to avoid having counsel travel around the world, the cross-examinations were conducted by video-conference over fast video links and transcripts of the cross-examinations were filed for use on the summary trial. The expert evidence was adduced at a two-day hearing before Justice Southcott at which the expert witnesses explained their expert reports by way of viva voce testimony in chief and were cross-examined. The expert reports were also taken as read. A few weeks after the two-day hearing, written arguments were exchanged and filed, and a week later the parties returned to make oral argument. The agreed upon procedure allowed Justice Southcott to adjudicate the dispute by way of summary trial:

[35] In a motion for summary trial, Rule 216(6) provides that, if the Court is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for adjudication, regardless of the amounts involved, the complexities of the issues and the existence of conflicting evidence, the Court may grant judgment either generally or on an issue, unless the Court is of the opinion that it would be unjust to decide the issues on the motion. In determining whether summary trial is...