Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

The Wilson Report was excluded because large parts were irrelevant to the issues before the Court (the patent examination process and examiner speculation), it impermissibly offered expert opinion on domestic law and prosecution matters which are unnecessary given judicial notice and existing evidence, and the author was not a person skilled in the art relevant to claim construction; admission would prejudice the Defendant and the report therefore failed the Mohan admissibility criteria.

Citation
2010 FC 1328
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Eurocopter (société par actions simplifiée); Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement With Counterclaim for Invalidity / Pre Trial Motion on Expert Admissibility; Trial Scheduled to Begin January 10, 2011
Outcome
Motion granted in favor of Defendant; the Expert Report of Murray Wilson and his testimony were excluded; costs awarded to Defendant in the amount of $3,000.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence Admissibility, Patent Validity, Patent Claim Construction, Patent Prosecution/file Wrapper, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Evidence Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Admissibility Patent Validity Patent Claim Construction Patent Prosecution/file Wrapper +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eurocopter (société par actions simplifiée)

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement With Counterclaim for Invalidity / Pre Trial Motion on Expert Admissibility; Trial Scheduled to Begin January 10, 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence about the patent examination process and prosecution is relevant
  2. 2 Whether expert evidence on domestic patent law is admissible
  3. 3 Whether the expert qualifies as a person skilled in the art to assist claim construction

Ratio Decidendi

The Wilson Report was excluded because large parts were irrelevant to the issues before the Court (the patent examination process and examiner speculation), it impermissibly offered expert opinion on domestic law and prosecution matters which are unnecessary given judicial notice and existing evidence, and the author was not a person skilled in the art relevant to claim construction; admission would prejudice the Defendant and the report therefore failed the Mohan admissibility criteria.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in favor of Defendant; the Expert Report of Murray Wilson and his testimony were excluded; costs awarded to Defendant in the amount of $3,000.

Orders

  • The Expert Report of Murray Wilson dated November 11, 2010 is inadmissible.
  • The Plaintiff is barred from presenting Murray Wilson as an expert witness at trial.