Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Colorado - Colorado


File Size: 962.0 kB
Pages: 15
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 447 Words, 2,793 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/20882/110-11.pdf

Download Motion to Compel - District Court of Colorado ( 962.0 kB)


Preview Motion to Compel - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 1 of 15

VARCO V. PASON
EXHIBIT 8

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 2 of 15

l a k

e

World Exchange Plaza 20" Floor, 45 O'Canno~Street Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIP 1A4 Telephone: 613.788.2200 Facsimile: 613,786.2247 www.blakes.com T e n y Leier Direct Dial: 613.788.2244 E-mail: [email protected]

DELIVERED BY COURIER
Reference: 101644/3

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO SOLICITOR AND CLIENT PRIVILEGE Mr. frn Hill President Pason Systems Corp, 6130 - 3* Street, S.E. Calgary, Alberta T2HIK4
Dear Mr. Hill:

"'L

,9'

* " I -

Re:

Pason Systems Corp. ''Auto Drilling System" Our fife: 101644-03

This letter provides a patent infringement review of proposed Pason equipment in view of Canadian patent 2,094,3 13 issued to Bowden (the Bowden patent).
Since infringement is country specific, 1 have addressed the matter of infringement from a Canadian perspective only as we are a Canadian law firm, Any reference to U.S. patents is made to provide general comments based on ow practise b e f m the U.S. Patent and Trademark Ofice, To address the issue of infringement requires a review of the claims of issued and in-farce patents as it is the claims that define the monopoly of the patent. Once a patent expires, the claims cannot be infringed as they are no longer enforceable, Moreover, claims when in force are only enforceable in the jurisdiction in which the patent was granted.

Based my understanding of your proposed apparatus as described in more detrtil below, it appears that the hewaratus of your computer-based system is completely different than the pneumatic axmgement taught by Bowden. As you have different apparatus than that claimed in
4017951 1.1

Montrkl

*

Ottawa

Taronto

Calgary

Vancouver

Londw

.

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 3 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 4 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 5 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 6 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 7 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 8 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 9 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 10 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 11 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 12 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 13 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 14 of 15

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 110-11

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 15 of 15