Law360 Canada ( February 20, 2025, 9:09 AM EST) -- Appeal by appellant from Federal Court decision that found a number of claims of three of its patents invalid for obviousness. The appellant argued that the Federal Court erred in its analysis of obviousness. The three patents in issue before the Federal Court were 940 Patent and the two that remained in issue on appeal, the 426 Patent and the 233 Patent. All three patents were owned by the appellant. Each of the patents in issue concerned a blade device and assembly to be attached to the bottom of a snow plow carried on a vehicle. The principal relevant prior art consisted of the PolarFlex Patent, the Joma Patent and products made according to these patents. The respondent owned the PolarFlex Patent and had commercialized a product. The PolarFlex Patent described a snow plow blade that, like the 426 and 233 Patents, reduced wear by eliminating metal-to-metal contact by using resilient parts. The disagreement between the parties on obviousness arose at the stage of considering the differences between the inventive concept and the prior art, and whether any such differences would have been obvious for the person skilled in the art (“POSITA”) to bridge. The Federal Court heard testimony from experts put forward by each party, Bouchard for the appellant and Paonessa for the respondent.The Federal Court found that any differences between the inventive concept and the prior art would have been obvious to bridge....