Hershkovitz v. Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd.

Hershkovitz v. Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd.

The Schedule A questions and reasonable follow-up questions are relevant to Tyco’s counterclaim challenging the validity/timeliness of Paradox’s disclaimers and could yield evidence affecting the merits; accordingly it is fair and reasonable to order Mr. Shpater to return to Canada at his own expense to complete his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 FC 348
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Shmuel Hershkovitz; Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Systèmes de Sécurité Paradox Ltée / Paradox Security Systems Ltd.; Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim (witness Subject to Examination): Pinhas Shpater; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Dispute / Discovery Motion / Pre Trial Motion Under Rule 97 to Compel Witness Attendance for Continued Examination in Chief
Outcome
Motion allowed with costs; Mr. Shpater ordered to return to Canada at his own expense to answer Schedule A questions and reasonable follow-ups; parties enjoined to proceed expeditiously and file a jointly agreed schedule.
Legal Topics
Discovery / Examination in Chief, Relevance of Documents, Patent Disclaimers, File Wrappers, Timeliness of Amendments
Source Language
english
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Law Discovery Discovery / Examination in Chief Relevance of Documents Patent Disclaimers File Wrappers +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shmuel Hershkovitz

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

Systèmes de Sécurité Paradox Ltée / Paradox Security Systems Ltd.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

Pinhas Shpater

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim (witness Subject to Examination)

Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Dispute / Discovery Motion / Pre Trial Motion Under Rule 97 to Compel Witness Attendance for Continued Examination in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Shpater can be compelled to return to Canada at his own expense to answer Schedule A questions and related follow-ups
  2. 2 Whether the Schedule A questions and file wrappers are relevant to Tyco’s challenge to Paradox’s Canadian disclaimers
  3. 3 Whether Paradox’s disclaimers were timely and resulted from error or delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Schedule A questions and reasonable follow-up questions are relevant to Tyco’s counterclaim challenging the validity/timeliness of Paradox’s disclaimers and could yield evidence affecting the merits; accordingly it is fair and reasonable to order Mr. Shpater to return to Canada at his own expense to complete his examination in chief.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed with costs; Mr. Shpater ordered to return to Canada at his own expense to answer Schedule A questions and reasonable follow-ups; parties enjoined to proceed expeditiously and file a jointly agreed schedule.

Orders

  • Motion of defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim allowed with costs
  • Mr. Shpater ordered to return to Canada at his own expense to reply to the six Schedule A questions and any other questions reasonably arising from his replies and from undertakings filed January 31, 2006