In 1985, Nautical Enterprises Ltd. applied for and received a patent for its new invention of a specialized scuba-diving suit. The claims statement accompanying the patent application stated that the new diving suit was capable of performing five specialized functions not formerly available to purchasers of such suits. In the same year, Nautical also patented the suit in the United States and granted a license to ABC Co. to manufacture the suit at its facilities in Florida. ABC commenced manufacturing immediately to meet the demand for the suits in the U.S. and exported them to diving suppliers in Canada
At the time of ABC's export, there were six Canadian companies engaged in the manufacture of diving suits. One of them, having learned of the new specialized suit, began producing suits with highly similar characteristics and functions and sold the suits through Canadian distributors.
In early 1987, Nautical and ABC learned of the manufacturing activity in Canada and immediately sent a letter to the manufacturer informing it that they were the patentee and licensee respectively of the diving suit. Nautical invited the manufacturer to negotiate a licence to produce the suits as Canadian Nautical itself, did not wish to manufacture in Canada. Several years of negotiation, however, failed to achieve an acceptable agreement during which time the similar suits continued to be manufactured in Canada by this manufacturer. In 1989, another Canadian diving suit manufacturer, Deep Diving Suits Inc., recognized the demand for Nautical suits in Canada. Deep Diving had the facilities to manufacture the patented suit and wished to do so on a commercial scale. The company applied to the court for assistance
Discuss the nature of this application and its probable outcome. Include in your discussion all factors which may affect the court's decision.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In 1985, Nautical Enterprises Ltd. applied for and received a patent for its new invention of a specialized scuba-diving suit. The claims statement accompanying the patent application stated that the new diving suit was capable of performing five specialized functions not formerly available to purchasers of such suits. In the same year, Nautical also patented the suit in the United States and granted a license to ABC Co. to manufacture the suit at its facilities in Florida. ABC commenced manufacturing immediately to meet the demand for the suits in the U.S. and exported them to diving suppliers in Canada
At the time of ABC's export, there were six Canadian companies engaged in the manufacture of diving suits. One of them, having learned of the new specialized suit, began producing suits with highly similar characteristics and functions and sold the suits through Canadian distributors.
In early 1987, Nautical and ABC learned of the manufacturing activity in Canada and immediately sent a letter to the manufacturer informing it that they were the patentee and licensee respectively of the diving suit. Nautical invited the manufacturer to negotiate a licence to produce the suits as Canadian Nautical itself, did not wish to manufacture in Canada. Several years of negotiation, however, failed to achieve an acceptable agreement during which time the similar suits continued to be manufactured in Canada by this manufacturer. In 1989, another Canadian diving suit manufacturer, Deep Diving Suits Inc., recognized the demand for Nautical suits in Canada. Deep Diving had the facilities to manufacture the patented suit and wished to do so on a commercial scale. The company applied to the court for assistance
Discuss the nature of this application and its probable outcome. Include in your discussion all factors which may affect the court's decision.