Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Videotron G.P.

Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Videotron G.P.

The motion was dismissed because Rovi/TiVo sought to revisit relief it previously abandoned (abuse of process), failed to meet the specificity and relevance requirements of Rule 233 and the four-part test for examinations under Rule 238 (including failure to show the named non-parties possess the requested information), and unreasonably delayed seeking discovery such that granting the motion would prejudice Videotron and disrupt fixed trial scheduling.

Citation
2019 FC 1220
Parties
Plaintiffs/defendants by Counterclaim: Rovi Guides, Inc. and TiVo Solutions Inc.; Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim: Videotron G.P. and Videotron Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Counterclaim for Invalidity / Pre Trial; Motion for Non Party Discovery and Motion to Strike (both Dismissed)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' motion for non-party discovery dismissed in its entirety; Defendants' motion to strike dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Party Discovery, Rule 233, Rule 238, Letters of Request, Abuse of Process, Source Code Production, Delay and Prejudice, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Discovery Law Non Party Discovery Rule 233 Rule 238 Letters of Request +4 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rovi Guides, Inc. and TiVo Solutions Inc.

Plaintiffs/defendants by Counterclaim

Videotron G.P. and Videotron Ltd.

Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Counterclaim for Invalidity / Pre Trial; Motion for Non Party Discovery and Motion to Strike (both Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted for non-party production and examination
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of Federal Courts Rules 233 and 238 are satisfied
  3. 3 Whether the motion is an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because Rovi/TiVo sought to revisit relief it previously abandoned (abuse of process), failed to meet the specificity and relevance requirements of Rule 233 and the four-part test for examinations under Rule 238 (including failure to show the named non-parties possess the requested information), and unreasonably delayed seeking discovery such that granting the motion would prejudice Videotron and disrupt fixed trial scheduling.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' motion for non-party discovery dismissed in its entirety; Defendants' motion to strike dismissed.

Orders

  • The Defendants' motion to strike is dismissed, with costs in the event of the cause.
  • The Plaintiffs' motion is dismissed with costs to be fixed by the Court in the event the parties cannot agree.