Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Lubrizol Corp.

A-737-90

Mahoney J.A.

14/4/93

6 pp.

Lubrizol directed to draft and move for judgment-Two paragraphs of proposed judgment contested as departure from reasons for judgment-Lubrizol alleging judgment misapprehended facts as agreed between parties or conceded by Imperial in argument-Court erred as to expiry date of patent and failed to deal with implication of expiration date of Canadian patent before termination of license agreement-Conclusion no infringement by any product before June 30, 1982 now invalid-Referee required to consider infringement of "Meinhardt patent" after March 3, 1981-Prejudgment interest for infringement relating to "ECA 7474 and products containing it" running from date damage suffered or profits made because infringements not inadvertent-Conclusion applied equally to other products in ECA Group, including all products containing it-Consequential clarification made-Consequent on misapprehension of agreed fact as to expiry date of licence, Court not addressing possibility of infringement by certain products before March 16, 1981-Trial Judge correctly stated date plaintiffs first had knowledge of wrongful act operative date-Lubrizol's proposed judgment reflecting correct appreciation of agreed and conceded facts-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 337(2)(b).

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.