The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting partial summary judgment to the respondents on the issue of product ownership.
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that there was no triable issue regarding the appellant's ownership of the product, noting the appellant's pleadings and a 1996 licensing agreement were inconsistent with ownership.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, striking the declaration that the respondent owned the product because the respondent had not filed a counter-claim.
