A. Chisholm

Snapclarity Inc. brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain its former CEO and her new company from using an online mental health intake assessment questionnaire and competing against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Snapclarity failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of the non-compete clause or copyright infringement, as the questionnaire was likely owned by the former CEO's consulting firm.

Furthermore, Snapclarity failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as its platform had already been sold and integrated into another company's product, and the balance of convenience favoured the responding parties.

The applicant, a health science company, sought a declaration that it owned a family of patent applications filed by the respondents relating to a 'Device-Less Invention' for cellular transplantation.

The applicant argued the invention was a modification of its own technology and was developed using confidential information obtained by the respondent doctor during a consulting agreement.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the application based on a forum selection clause in a separate clinical trial agreement, which the court dismissed after finding the consulting agreement governed the dispute.

On the merits, the court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent doctor had independently conceived and demonstrated the utility of the invention years before entering into the consulting agreement with the applicant.