From Suds To Scrutiny: Detergent Pod Patent Dispute Comes Out In The Wash

On July 14, 2026, the Federal Court of Canada (FC) issued its decision in Gemak Trust et al. v Jempak ULC, 2026 FC 901, dismissing GEMAK Trust’s (GEMAK) patent infringement action relating to detergent product formulations packaged in water-soluble film and allowing Jempak ULC’s (Jempak) invalidity counterclaim in part.

This dispute had earlier resulted in summary judgment in favour of Jempak’s predecessor (2020 FC 644), which the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) overturned in 2022 and directed the matter to trial (2022 FCA 141; as previously reported by the E-TIPS® Newsletter here). The FCA held that the FC had erred by making credibility findings about the expert evidence that were not open to it on a motion for summary judgment, and the error affected the construction of a claim term that was central to the finding of no infringement.

The FCA sent the matter to trial because credibility and technical evidence required fuller assessment, and those issues were pivotal in the FC’s ultimate decision.  The parties introduced evidence from eight expert witnesses and several fact witnesses, and the FC’s decision underscores the importance of objective and scientifically supported expert evidence, and that testing evidence must connect directly to the patent claim language.

At trial, the central infringement issue was whether Jempak’s accused products contained granules comprising percarbonate and a blend encapsulating the percarbonate, where the blend included sulfate, carboxymethyl cellulose, and a nonionic surfactant, as required by the asserted claims.  The FC found that GEMAK had not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the tested granules had all three blend components on their surface, encapsulating the percarbonate, and therefore had failed to prove infringement.

On invalidity, the FC held that Jempak had failed to meet its burden in establishing anticipation, obviousness, overbreadth, and inutility.  However, the FC found that Jempak had established insufficiency.  In particular, the FC found that the inventor had withheld information about formulations that worked and did not work, and that the patent did not put the skilled person in a position to make the same successful use of the invention as the inventor could.

Summary By: Michelle Noonan