Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the updraftplus domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home3/limpertl/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the wordpress-seo domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home3/limpertl/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114
Limpert & Associates CS2 Equipment Supplier Dispute - ON
T (416) 214-1444 | F 416-214-5511 | LIMPERT & ASSOCIATES

CS 2 – Equipment Supplier Dispute for an Innovative, Strategic Product Line

A national company (our client) developed an innovative new series of products requiring new manufacturing processes and equipment.  It worked with a series of equipment suppliers over a five year period.  Ultimately, a dispute arose with the main equipment supplier.  The supplier claimed it had the right to provide similar equipment and processes to competitors of our client. The situation was complicated by the fact that the contracts between the parties were not always clear and sometimes no contract existed. Development had been complicated, spanning many years and a multi-million dollar effort.  A multi-faceted approach was taken for this equipment supplier dispute, including:

  • Understanding more precisely what the client and supplier had each done;
  • Clarifying the basis for asserting rights – this included finding contracts originally overlooked;
  • Putting in place better contracts (as work with supplier was ongoing);
  • Apply for different types of IP protection;
  • Managing messaging to, and communications with, the supplier; and
  • Asserting rights in a more systematic way.

Ultimately, the activities were very successful for our client.  The supplier ceased attempting to market the equipment and processes to potential competitors.  The client was able to preserve a sustainable competitive advantage in a multi-million product marketplace.