Jim Halford and Pat Beaujot have much in common.
They both farm and live in small town Saskatchewan, almost close enough to be neighbours. They both believe in keeping tillage to a minimum. They both design and build some of the most accurate small-grain seeding equipment in the world.
If not friends, they could have been friendly competitors. Instead, they have been tied up in a decade-old lawsuit over the fundamental design of their machines.
In January a judge settled their fight, unless Halford appeals.
Read Also
Canola oil transloading facility opens
DP World just opened its new canola oil transload facility at the Port of Vancouver. It can ship one million tonnes of the commodity per year.
Justice James Pelletier decided Jan. 23 in a federal court in Winnipeg in favour of the defendants, the Beaujot brothers and their Langbank, Sask., company Seed Hawk.
He said in his decision that while the seeding systems were similar, they were different enough that Seed Hawk did not infringe the Halford patent.
In the early 1980s, Jim Halford of Indian Head, Sask., filed the “Halford Patent,” as it is known to the Federal Court of Canada, numbered 1,239,835.
Among other things, it specified a seed delivery system that relied on a packer row wheel to provide exact seed depth and placement with a seed row opener mounted directly behind a primary fertilizer opener on a shank, mounted to the seeder frame.
Halford’s company, Conserva Pak, began building and selling the machines and revolutionized zero tillage and precision seeding, especially in heavy soils.
In 1992, the Beaujots built their own seeder that hinged its fertilizer and seed shanks to the frame and controlled depth and packer pressure through individual hydraulic cylinders. This unit had an offset seed shank that formed its own seed row.
The following year they began marketing the machine and sold five units to other farmers.
While a change of seed opener might make one machine act nearly like the other, the court decided the basic design was different enough from the Halford patent that it was not an infringement.
Although his company won the decision, Beaujot said his company’s attempt to have the Halford patent rendered invalid was unsuccessful.
“I just hope this is over. It has been hard on the cash flow for a small company like ours to keep up the fight for this long. We could use the money we don’t spend on legal bills to expand,” Beaujot said.
Halford declined comment until after his company decides whether it will appeal the decision. The appeal deadline is Feb. 23.
