This case involves a patent infringement dispute remanded from the Federal Court of Appeal concerning Canadian Patent 2,766,249 for a tilt correction system for rail seat abrasion.
The Court had to determine whether the remanded claims were obvious and invalid.
The Court found that the defendant failed to prove that the specific "tilt correction factor" in Claims 2 to 6, 8 to 10, and 13 to 17 was obvious, as there was insufficient evidence that it was disclosed in prior art.
However, applying the principle of claim differentiation, the Court held that independent Claims 1 and 12, which broadly claimed tilt correction, were obvious in light of prior art and were therefore invalid.
The counterclaim was allowed in part.
