Garford Pty Ltd. v. Dywidag Systems International, Canada, Ltd.

In this patent infringement action, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) upheld a decision of the Motions Judge granting summary judgment and dismissing the part of the Plantiff's claims alleging a breach of the Competition Act. The FCA held that the Trial Judge had made no error in applying the law, nor was there a palpable error regarding his factual findings. Our summary of the Federal Court's decision is found here.

The Competition Act claim was dismissed as the Court held that it was brought outside the applicable two year limitation period. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's acquisition of three companies in the market caused it loss. The Court held that alleged offence was complete at the time the agreements were concluded, and the suit was not brought until several months after the latest relevant date. The principles of discoverability were held not to arise on the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court confirmed that ongoing effects from an agreement do not extend the limitation period.

Bifurcation Order Reinstated

Dywidag Systems International, Canada, Ltd. v. Garford Pty Ltd.

In the same patent infringement action, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) reinstated the Prothonotary's decision bifurcating issues of quantum from issues of liability. The FCA held that the only reason the Motions Judge set aside the Prothonotary's order was due to the claim for damages under the Competition Act. Our summary of the Motion Judge's decision is found here.

As described above, the FCA has now dismissed the Competition Act claim. The FCA also held that Motions Judge made no reviewable error with respect to the other arguments made by the Plaintiff against bifurcation. Thus, the FCA held that bifurcation is appropriate.