Arctic Cat Inc v Bombardier Recreational Products Inc 2018 FCA 125 Gauthier, De Montigny,
Gleason JJA aff’g 2016 FC 1047 Roy J
2,322,738
At trial in Arctic Cat v BRP Roy J held that on a proper construction of the claims, Arctic Cat’s
738 patent relating to engine ignition timing was not infringed by BRP’s snowmobile engines, but if he was wrong as to the proper
claim construction, so that BRP’s engines did infringe, then the claims at issue were invalid for
obviousness: see previous posts on claim construction and damages. Arctic Cat appealed, and the
FCA has now affirmed on the basis of obviousness, in a brief decision delivered from the bench.
No comments:
Post a Comment