Search claim construction, literal infringement, doctrine of equivalents, damages calculations, injunctions, and more — backed by real case law.
Patent infringement disputes turn on how claims are construed and whether the accused product or process falls within their scope — Casey searches millions of court decisions to return verified rulings on infringement analysis, damages, and remedies.
Patent infringement disputes turn on how claims are construed and whether the accused product or process falls within their scope — Casey searches millions of court decisions to return verified rulings on infringement analysis, damages, and remedies.
Real Scenarios
1
Claim Construction Disputes
Before infringement can be assessed, courts must construe the patent claims. Purposive construction considers the specification, the skilled reader's understanding, and the inventor's intent. How a court reads the claims often determines the outcome of the case.
Prompt:
“How do courts resolve disputes over the meaning of patent claim terms?”
Casey returns decisions applying purposive construction, how courts used the patent specification to interpret disputed terms, what role expert evidence played, and when claims were given a broad versus narrow reading.
2
Literal Infringement Analysis
Literal infringement occurs when every element of a patent claim is found in the accused product or process. Courts compare the claims element by element against the allegedly infringing activity. Missing even one element can defeat the infringement allegation.
Prompt:
“What evidence is needed to prove literal patent infringement in Canada?”
Casey surfaces rulings where courts conducted element-by-element comparisons, what technical evidence was required, how experts demonstrated the presence or absence of claimed features, and when literal infringement was found or denied.
3
Doctrine of Equivalents
Even when literal infringement is not established, a patent holder may argue that the accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result. Canadian courts have applied this doctrine cautiously.
Prompt:
“How have Canadian courts applied the doctrine of equivalents in patent cases?”
Casey retrieves decisions on the doctrine of equivalents, how courts balanced broad protection for patentees against certainty for the public, what tests were applied, and when equivalents arguments succeeded or were rejected.
4
Damages and Accounting of Profits
Patent holders can elect between damages (compensation for their loss) and an accounting of profits (disgorgement of the infringer's gain). Calculating either remedy requires detailed financial evidence and expert analysis of causation.
Prompt:
“How do courts calculate damages for patent infringement in Canada?”
Casey returns decisions awarding damages or ordering an accounting of profits, how courts determined the appropriate royalty rate, what evidence established lost sales, and how the non-infringing alternative analysis affected damage calculations.
5
Injunctions and Interim Relief
Courts may grant injunctions to stop ongoing infringement. Interim injunctions require showing a serious issue, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience. Permanent injunctions typically follow a finding of infringement but are not automatic.
Prompt:
“When do courts grant interim injunctions in patent infringement cases?”
Casey surfaces rulings on interim and permanent injunctions, how courts applied the three-part test for interlocutory relief, what constituted irreparable harm in patent cases, and when injunctions were denied despite proven infringement.
6
Invalidity as a Defence
Accused infringers frequently argue that the patent is invalid due to lack of novelty, obviousness, or insufficient disclosure. Courts assess validity and infringement together, and a finding of invalidity eliminates the infringement claim entirely.
Prompt:
“How often do courts invalidate patents as a defence to infringement claims?”
Casey retrieves decisions where invalidity defences succeeded or failed, how courts weighed prior art challenges, what standard of proof applied to invalidity allegations, and how the presumption of validity affected outcomes.
Real Scenarios
Before infringement can be assessed, courts must construe the patent claims. Purposive construction considers the specification, the skilled reader's understanding, and the inventor's intent. How a court reads the claims often determines the outcome of the case.
Prompt:
“How do courts resolve disputes over the meaning of patent claim terms?”
Casey returns decisions applying purposive construction, how courts used the patent specification to interpret disputed terms, what role expert evidence played, and when claims were given a broad versus narrow reading.
In Canada, patent infringement cases are heard exclusively by the Federal Court, which has developed specialized expertise in claim construction and technical evidence — making its rulings particularly influential in shaping patent law across the country.
Ask Casey your question and get answers backed by real case law — free for the public, powerful for professionals.