The Federal Court of Canada has clipped the wings of Flexi-Coil Ltd., saying it lifted a patented packer design from Bourgault Industries Ltd.
“We’re pleased with the result, but it’s just one step in a long process,” said Bourgault spokesperson Brian Kerr about the federal court’s ruling that Flexi-Coil infringed on one of its patents when it began manufacturing wing-type packers in 1989.
The court decided Flexi-Coil’s 75 series of 35 to 62 foot packers infringe on Bourgault’s patent. It said the company can’t sell any more of the devices. The court has asked Bourgault to determine the losses it believes it suffered due to Flexi-Coil’s infringement.
Read Also
Using artificial intelligence in agriculture starts with the right data
Good data is critical as the agriculture sector increasingly adopts new AI technology to drive efficiency, sustainability and trust across all levels of the value chain.
It will then decide what damages Flexi-Coil will have to pay. Flexi-Coil’s new machines do not infringe on Bourgault’s patents, but the company is unsure about what happens to unsold machinery on dealer lots.
Flexi-Coil is appealing the court ruling and spokesperson Kent Anderson said he wouldn’t be surprised to see the battle last another three years.
“We were totally surprised by the court’s ruling,” said Anderson. “We feel very strongly … that the ruling will be overturned.”
The dispute began after Bourgault released its wing-type packer in 1988. The device allows farmers to do one-pass seeding with an airseeder, a cultivator and packer.
The next year Flexi-Coil came out with a similar packer device that also allowed one-pass seeding.
Bourgault applied for a patent in 1989 and received it at the end of 1990.
Bourgault then accused Flexi-Coil of infringing on its patent and sued the company for damages.
Kerr said Bourgault was able to prove its case because its wing-type packer design was unlike anything on the market. Not only was it unique, it was something that shouldn’t have worked, but did.
“It wasn’t a natural progression. It was an unnatural solution to a problem that happened to work.”
Because Bourgault’s design didn’t naturally flow from devices already on the market, the court accepted that Flexi-Coil’s similar device had copied its patented principle.
But Anderson said Flexi-Coil came up with its design independently.
“We never knowingly copy any person or other company’s patents,” said Anderson. “We have never done that and we feel our reputation is based on that.”
The Bourgault and Flexi-Coil devices were innovations, but were based on existing principles, he said.
“The technology that is used in both systems was very commonly known within our industry prior to the granting of the Bourgault patent,” Anderson said.
Bourgault has spent more than $500,000 on the lawsuit, but Kerr said defending the company’s innovations is important for dealers and customers.
