ement . ▁The ▁stage ▁at ▁which ▁the ▁pat ented ▁product ▁or ▁process ▁is ▁used . ▁For ▁example , ▁use ▁of ▁a ▁process ▁as ▁a ▁pre lim inary ▁step ▁of ▁a ▁length y ▁production ▁process ▁may ▁lead ▁to ▁a ▁conclusion ▁that ▁the ▁pat ente e ▁has ▁suffered ▁little ▁dep riv ation . ▁The ▁number ▁of ▁instances ▁of ▁use ▁made ▁of ▁the ▁pat ented ▁product ▁or ▁process . ▁Where ▁the ▁same ▁pat ented ▁product ▁is ▁used ▁repet it ively ▁through ▁the ▁production ▁of ▁the ▁non - pat ented ▁end ▁product , ▁there ▁may ▁be ▁clearer ▁evidence ▁that ▁the ▁advantage ▁of ▁the ▁pat ente e ▁has ▁been ▁imp a ired . ▁The ▁strength ▁of ▁the ▁evidence ▁demonstr ating ▁that , ▁if ▁carried ▁out ▁or ▁used ▁in ▁Canada , ▁the ▁product ▁or ▁process ▁would ▁const itute ▁in fr ing ement . ▁On ▁this ▁point , ▁my ▁opinion ▁would ▁be ▁that , ▁where ▁there ▁is ▁ambigu ity ▁in ▁the ▁evidence , ▁the ▁benefit ▁of ▁the ▁doubt ▁should ▁go ▁to ▁the ▁party ▁using ▁the ▁product ▁or ▁process . ▁This ▁is , ▁perhaps , ▁simply ▁another ▁way ▁of ▁express ing ▁the ▁established ▁principle ▁that ▁the ▁pat ente e ▁be ars ▁the ▁bur den ▁of ▁prov ing ▁in fr ing ement . ▁ ▁The ▁court ▁con cludes ▁that ▁a ▁" strong ▁link " ▁must ▁be ▁" est ab lished ▁between ▁the ▁use ▁of ▁the ▁pat ented ▁process ▁or ▁product ▁and ▁the ▁product ▁sold ▁into ▁Canada ." ▁ ▁Ind uc ement ▁or ▁contrib ut ory ▁in fr ing ement ▁It ▁is ▁a