This was a patent infringement action, relating to an invention that pertains to the general field of building construction.
The Court conducted a claim-by-claim analysis of the claims in issue, and compared the device manufactured by the Defendant with the claim in question. The Court noted that it is wrong to compare the Defendant’s device with the device manufactured by the Plaintiff. Following the Court’s analysis, the Court held that: (i) certain claims were invalid as between the parties (and thus, no infringement analysis was carried out), and (ii) the remaining claims were not infringed (and thus, no validity analysis was carried out). Since none of the claims in issue were found to be both valid and infringed, the action failed. No costs were awarded due to an “unexplained” lack of communication on the part of the Defendant which, in the Court’s view, might have helped to avoid a trial.