|

|

Gas, food, laundry

Dimock Stratton's lawyers have represented plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement and impeachment actions covering a variety of everyday products, from french fries (Amfac Foods Ltd. v. Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd.) to ear plugs (Cabot Corp. v. 318602 Ontario Ltd.), gas fireplaces (CFM v. Wolf Steel) to dryer softener sheets (Procter & Gamble Inc. ats Unilever PLC).

The well-known Bounce® dryer sheets, pictured at left, were the subject of a patent dispute between Unilever and Procter & Gamble. Unilever brought an infringement action against P&G for its patent relating to an invention for softening damp clothing in a hot air mechanically agitated laundry dryer. Although the patent was found to be valid and infringed and damages in the form of "generous, but non-confiscatory" royalties were ordered, the Federal Court declined to award an injunction against P&G or order an accounting of P&G's profits. The Court found that Unilever had delayed too long in enforcing its patent, which was set to expire within a short period of time; in the meantime, P&G had enforced its own patent for dryer softener sheets against other infringers. The decision was upheld on appeal. The issue of what constituted "generous" royalties was never determined by a court, as assessment of damages was settled between the parties.

Amfac Foods Ltd. v. Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. (1984), 80 C.P.R. (2d) 59 (F.C.T.D.); (1986) 11 C.P.R. (3d) 327 (F.C.A.)

Cabot Corp. v. 318602 Ontario Ltd. (Superior Safety) (1988), 20 C.P.R. (3d) 132 (F.C.T.D.)

CFM v. Wolf Steel (1993), 50 C.P.R. (3d) 215 (F.C.T.D.); (1995), 64 C.P.R. (3d) 75 (F.C.A.)

Unilever PLC v. Procter & Gamble Inc. (1993), 47 C.P.R. (3d) 479 (F.C.T.D.); (1995), 61 C.P.R. (3d) 499 (F.C.A.)