Case updates
Nov 22, 2024
Rush Ihas Hardwick LLP is pleased to share a recent success in the Federal Court of Canada, where Jeffrey W. Robinson effectively defended our clients, EIS GmbH and EIS Inc., against a wide-ranging motion to strike, for particulars, and for production brought by the defendant in EIS GmbH and EIS Inc. v. TBMBM, Inc., 2024 FC 1875 (full decision here).
This outcome highlights our firm’s commitment to protecting our clients’ right to pursue their claims fully and fairly, particularly in technically complex areas such as patent infringement litigation.
The Case: Patent Infringement Claim Against Competing Massage Devices
Our clients, EIS GmbH and EIS Inc. (“EIS”), are asserting claims of patent infringement against TBMBM, Inc. The patent at issue, Canadian Patent No. 2,943,097, covers a pressure wave massage device.
EIS alleges that the defendant has infringed the patent through various compression wave massage devices marketed and sold in Canada.
The Defendant’s Motion: Broad and Aggressive
The defendant brought an aggressive pre-pleading motion seeking:
- To strike multiple core allegations in the Statement of Claim — including key infringement allegations.
- To compel extensive particulars and pre-discovery production — including samples, photos, and diagrams of the allegedly infringing products.
The Result: A Strong Defence Outcome
Through careful preparation and targeted submissions, Jeffrey W. Robinson was able to defeat the vast majority of the defendant’s motion.
Here are the key takeaways from the Court’s ruling:
- Patent infringement allegations were largely preserved: The core infringement claims survived. The Court struck only limited language that was overly broad or redundant — primarily wording that the plaintiffs had already proposed to amend voluntarily.
- Inducement claims preserved in part: While some language regarding inducement was struck, the fundamental infringement allegations remain.
- Manufacturing allegations upheld: The Court refused to strike the manufacturing allegations, finding them sufficiently particularized to permit the defendant to respond.
- No order for premature production: The defendant’s motion for particulars and document production — including demands for samples and diagrams — was dismissed. The Court found that the defendant already had sufficient information to plead its defence at this stage.
- No costs awarded against EIS: The Court ordered no costs on the motion — further confirmation that EIS’s position was entirely reasonable.
Why It Matters
This result reflects the strategic, measured litigation approach that defines Rush Ihas Hardwick LLP:
- Protecting clients’ claims: Mr. Robinson ensured that EIS retains the ability to pursue its patent claims on the merits — without being derailed or prematurely narrowed by procedural tactics.
- Preventing unnecessary costs: By defeating the demand for particulars and production, Mr. Robinson shielded EIS from unnecessary, early litigation expense.
- Maintaining litigation control: The decision allows the case to proceed in a focused and efficient manner under special case management, with EIS in a strong position.
Reflecting Our Strengths
As one of British Columbia’s leading commercial litigation boutiques, Rush Ihas Hardwick LLP has built a reputation for handling complex intellectual property and commercial disputes — with particular expertise in technical litigation.
Jeffrey W. Robinson’s background in engineering and deep background in patent matters were central to this success — and exemplify the strengths that Rush Ihas Hardwick LLP brings to clients in highly specialized litigation.