About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Canada

CA005-j

Back

2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum Informal Case Summary – Federal Court of Canada [2016]: Uponor AB v Heatlink Group Inc., et al., 2016 FC 320

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 6

 

Federal Court of Canada [2016]: Uponor AB v Heatlink Group Inc., et al, 2016 FC 320

 

Date of judgment: March 16, 2016

Issuing authority: Federal Court of Canada

Level of the issuing authority: First instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Administrative)

Subject matter: Patents (Inventions); Enforcement of IP and Related Laws

Plaintiff: Uponor AB

Defendants: Heatlink Group Inc.; Pexcor Manufacturing Inc.; Crosslink Finland OY; iNOEX GmbH; iNOEX LLC

Keywords: Patents, Patents infringement, Injunctive relief, Permanent injunction

 

Basic facts: Uponor AB (the plaintiff) holds Canadian Patent No. 2,232,376 (the 376 Patent), which relates to a method and apparatus for manufacturing crosslinked polyethylene (PEX) pipes. PEX pipes are widely used in the construction industry due to their strength and durability. Uponor claimed that Heatlink Group Inc. and Pexcor Manufacturing Inc. infringed its patent by manufacturing and selling PEX pipes in Canada using the patented process. Uponor AB also alleged that Crosslink Finland OY had indirectly infringed by supplying equipment used by Pexcor to produce the pipes.

 

In its claim, Uponor AB sought a permanent injunction to prevent the alleged infringement of the 376 Patent. They also sought damages, including lost profits due to the infringement, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs.

 

Held: On March 16, 2016, the Federal Court of Canada hold that a majority of the claims in the 376 Patent, owned by the plaintiff, are invalid for inutility in fact, insufficiency, overbreadth, anticipation, and obviousness, but that Heatlink Group Inc and Pexcor Manufacturing Company Inc (Pexcor) infringed the remaining claims.

 

The Court also held that Crosslink Finland OY, which supplied and serviced the infrared (IR) ovens used by Pexcor, did not induce the infringement.

 

Uponor AB was granted an injunction against Pexcor Manufacturing Inc. and Heatlink Group Inc., barring them from continuing the infringing activities, while the quantification of damages was reserved for further proceedings.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to permanent injunctions: After concluding that certain claims of the 376 Patent were valid and infringed by Pexcor Manufacturing Inc. and Heatlink Group Inc., the court addressed the remedies sought by Uponor AB.

 

Despite Uponor AB not practicing the claimed invention in Canada, the court emphasized the principle that patents confer exclusive rights on the patent holder, including the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the patented invention without permission. Given that Pexcor Manufacturing Inc. and Heatlink Group Inc. were found to have infringed the valid claims of the 376 Patent, the court ruled that a permanent injunction was the appropriate remedy to prevent further infringement and to preserve the integrity of Uponor AB’s patent rights.

 

As such, the Court found that Pexcor Manufacturing Inc. and Heatlink Group Inc. are enjoined from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, and/or selling to others for their use the apparatus for heating polymer material that infringes the 376 Patent and the PEX pipe made therefrom until expiry of the 376 Patent.

 

In addition to the permanent injunction, the court awarded damages.

 

The Court, however, declined to order the delivery-up of infringing products. In determining that delivery-up was not necessary or appropriate, the Court considered specific circumstances of the case:

 

·        Uponor AB did not sell or produce the infringing products in Canada or North America.

·        Although related North American Uponor Group companies sold pipes in Canada, those pipes were not made in accordance with the patented process, and none of the North American companies were involved in the proceedings.

·        Uponor AB’s patented process had not been significantly commercialized, with only limited use of the technology in its European facilities.

 

Based on these facts, the court concluded that delivery-up of the infringing products was not warranted.

 

Relevant legislation:

 

·         Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4