Transactions & Cases Detail

Transaction/Case Details

ARAM Systems Ltd's appeal dismissed against NovAtel Inc. regarding litigating US Patent Law in Canada


January 28, 2010






200 Million CAD


ARAM Systems Ltd. v. NovAtel Inc. (2008 ABQB 441; 2009 ABCA 262; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed January 28, 2010) is a unique case as it marked the first time a Canadian Court’s determination of inventorship of a US patent and other pending patent applications, including a Canadian application, relying on the American law of derivation.  In the spring of 2002, after reading an article about the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS), an employee of ARAM Systems Ltd., David Heidebrecht, allegedly developed an idea to collect seismic data using GPS technology in areas of harsh environments.  Heidebrecht applied for a US patent using GPS to address timing issue in seismic systems, but this application did not reference using GPS to locate seismic geophones in harsh environments.  In his search for a low cost GPS receiver, Heidebrecht met with NovAtel (a leading supplier of GPS technology) and specifically Pat Fenton, the Chief Technology Officer in June 2003.  Heidebrecht alleged he communicated his idea to use GPS to locate geophones in harsh environments using assisted GPS to NovAtel and Fenton.  After the June 2003 meeting Fenton began to develop a proposal for using assisted GPS for both timing and positioning the seismic data acquisition in harsh environments.  Fenton told Heidebrecht that he intended to apply for a US Provisional Patent.  Fenton’s proposal formed the substance of a US Patent Application which issued on October 3, 2006 (US Patent No. 7,117,094).  ARAM then claimed that NovAtel had wrongfully derived the subject matter of the US patent and pending applications from Heidebrecht, breached a non-disclosure agreement entered into between the parties and breached its duty of confidence.  Damages in excess of $200 million were claimed.  NovAtel filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration as to inventorship of the patent and breach of the non-disclosure agreement.

The trial commenced in October 2007 and extensive evidence on the US law of derivation from a number of US patent practitioners was led by each of the parties.  The trial decision was rendered in July 2008 where the Alberta Court accepted the application of US law and principles of derivation and found that Heidebrecht was neither an inventor nor co-inventor of US Patent No. 7,117,094.  ARAM appealed the trial decision to the Court of Appeal of Alberta which in July 2009 upheld the trial judge’s findings on derivation and dismissed the appeal on all grounds.  An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on January 28, 2010. 

McCarthy Tétrault LLP represented NovAtel, the defendant, with a team led by Timothy Ellam.


For general information on McCarthy Tétrault Transactions & Cases, please contact [email protected].

Related Area of Expertise

IP Litigation
read /

read /