{"id":{"repo_id":"uwo","oai_identifier":"oai:uwo.scholaris.ca:20.500.14721/19319"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uwo/oai:uwo.scholaris.ca:20.500.14721/19319","repository":{"repo_id":"uwo","name":"Western University","base_url":"https://uwo.scholaris.ca/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"HYPOTHETICAL CANADIAN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION IN THE RIM LAWSUIT","abstract":"The purpose of this thesis is (1) to test the hypothesis advanced by Canadian patent litigators that Canadian courts take a broader approach to patent claim construction than their American counterparts, and (2) to comment on a hypothetical patent claim construction for Research in Motion (“RIM”) litigation assuming that RIM would have been sued in Canada. The analysis for the first question is based on an evaluation of Canadian decisions rendered by Canadian courts after Whirlpool Corp. v. Cameo Inc. and Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. and does not include pharmaceutical cases. The findings of the thesis disprove the hypothesis advanced by the Canadian litigators and find that the Canadian courts construe patent claims narrowly. Moreover, a study prepared for the American Intellectual Property Law Association seems to support the findings of this thesis. In relation to answering the second question, based on the evidence, claim construction would likely be similar in Canada in relation to certain phrases and was inconclusive with respect to other phrases.","abstract_html":"The purpose of this thesis is (1) to test the hypothesis advanced by Canadian patent litigators that Canadian courts take a broader approach to patent claim construction than their American counterparts, and (2) to comment on a hypothetical patent claim construction for Research in Motion (“RIM”) litigation assuming that RIM would have been sued in Canada. The analysis for the first question is based on an evaluation of Canadian decisions rendered by Canadian courts after Whirlpool Corp. v. Cameo Inc. and Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. and does not include pharmaceutical cases. The findings of the thesis disprove the hypothesis advanced by the Canadian litigators and find that the Canadian courts construe patent claims narrowly. Moreover, a study prepared for the American Intellectual Property Law Association seems to support the findings of this thesis. In relation to answering the second question, based on the evidence, claim construction would likely be similar in Canada in relation to certain phrases and was inconclusive with respect to other phrases.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Bernards, Sebastian"],"institution":null,"degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":"Law","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2009,"date_issued":"2009-01-01","date_published":"2009-01-01","updated_at":"2026-07-27T21:55:58Z","subjects":["Patent claim construction","infringement","validity","Research In Motion","RIM","NTP","Canada","United States","Broad patent claim construction","Narrow patent claim construction","patents","intellectual property","patent litigation","Whirlpool Corp. v. Cameo Inc.","Free World Trust v. Electro Santé Inc."],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14721/19319","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Bernards, Sebastian"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2025-06-25T19:01:14Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2025-06-25T19:01:14Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2009-01-01"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Law"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Patent claim construction","infringement","validity","Research In Motion","RIM","NTP","Canada","United States","Broad patent claim construction","Narrow patent claim construction","patents","intellectual property","patent litigation","Whirlpool Corp. v. Cameo Inc.","Free World Trust v. Electro Santé Inc."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14721/19319"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The purpose of this thesis is (1) to test the hypothesis advanced by Canadian patent litigators that Canadian courts take a broader approach to patent claim construction than their American counterparts, and (2) to comment on a hypothetical patent claim construction for Research in Motion (“RIM”) litigation assuming that RIM would have been sued in Canada. The analysis for the first question is based on an evaluation of Canadian decisions rendered by Canadian courts after Whirlpool Corp. v. Cameo Inc. and Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. and does not include pharmaceutical cases. The findings of the thesis disprove the hypothesis advanced by the Canadian litigators and find that the Canadian courts construe patent claims narrowly. Moreover, a study prepared for the American Intellectual Property Law Association seems to support the findings of this thesis. In relation to answering the second question, based on the evidence, claim construction would likely be similar in Canada in relation to certain phrases and was inconclusive with respect to other phrases."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["HYPOTHETICAL CANADIAN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION IN THE RIM LAWSUIT"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Bernards, Sebastian"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2025-06-25T19:01:14Z"],"dc:date.available":["2025-06-25T19:01:14Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2009-01-01"],"dc:description.abstract":["The purpose of this thesis is (1) to test the hypothesis advanced by Canadian patent litigators that Canadian courts take a broader approach to patent claim construction than their American counterparts, and (2) to comment on a hypothetical patent claim construction for Research in Motion (“RIM”) litigation assuming that RIM would have been sued in Canada. The analysis for the first question is based on an evaluation of Canadian decisions rendered by Canadian courts after Whirlpool Corp. v. Cameo Inc. and Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. and does not include pharmaceutical cases. The findings of the thesis disprove the hypothesis advanced by the Canadian litigators and find that the Canadian courts construe patent claims narrowly. Moreover, a study prepared for the American Intellectual Property Law Association seems to support the findings of this thesis. In relation to answering the second question, based on the evidence, claim construction would likely be similar in Canada in relation to certain phrases and was inconclusive with respect to other phrases."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14721/19319"],"dc:subject":["Patent claim construction","infringement","validity","Research In Motion","RIM","NTP","Canada","United States","Broad patent claim construction","Narrow patent claim construction","patents","intellectual property","patent litigation","Whirlpool Corp. v. Cameo Inc.","Free World Trust v. Electro Santé Inc."],"dc:title":["HYPOTHETICAL CANADIAN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION IN THE RIM LAWSUIT"],"dc:type":["thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Law"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T21:55:58Z"}