Question

Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc. 2006 FCA 275 (CanLII) 275 D.L.R. (4th) 556; 54 C.P.R. (4th) 130 (F.C.A.)

James Halford was a university-trained farmer who invented a device for putting seeds and fertilizer into the ground in one operation. It was a relatively simple device but he was granted a patent for it. Norbert Beaujot, an engineer and part-time farmer, developed a similar device and incorporated a company to commercially exploit it. Halford sued. Beaujot had seen the Halford device in operation before he developed his own, but the machine he developed was quite different although it accomplished the same thing.

What is the nature of Halford’s complaint?

Explain the arguments for both sides and the likely outcome.

What is the appropriate remedy if Halford is successful?

Answer 1

1. Halford has filed a petition against Beaujot for the violation of Intellectual Property Rights. Halford manufactured a device to enhance the production. However, the components and working of the device were standard. Anyone who makes such an invention will have to go through all the same ingredients and processes. Beaujot also created a tool with similar but not the same characteristics. He also contended that the device functions in a different manner. Hence, there shall be no violation. The court summons both parties for their arguments.

2. The petitioner (Halford) will contend that he had made the device before the defendant (Beaujot) even thought of it. The petitioner will argue that the defendant violated his intellectual property rights. Moreover, the petitioner had patents of the product, and no other individual can exploit the product with the petitioner's permission. The petitioner shall subsequently plead to restore his patent rights. On the other hand, the defendant will contend that the petitioner's device model is necessary and straightforward. All the similar devices will have the same components and working. Moreover, the method that the defendant manufactured is identical but not the same. Hence, the defendant has not violated any patent rights of the petitioner.

3. The appropriate remedy in case the petitioner wins the suit is compensation, and subsequent injunction. The payment will cover all the losses, and the order will prevent any further exploitation of the patented product. Moreover, the defendant might also have to pay the court fees. It depends on the discretion of the judge.