Fieldturf Inc. v. Installations Sportives Defargo Inc.

Fieldturf Inc. v. Installations Sportives Defargo Inc.

Defargo's motion for particulars was dismissed because the court found Defargo was already familiar with the patents, claims and essential invention (including from prior litigation) and had waived any right to the particulars sought; particulars about Fieldturf products sold to the public were irrelevant at the pleading stage. However, because a defendant must plead prior art precisely, Fieldturf's motion was allowed and Defargo was ordered to provide the detailed particulars specified in Fieldturf's notice of motion and to serve and file a re-amended defence by May 29, 2006; costs were awarded accordingly and subsequent deadlines were adjusted.

Citation
2006 FC 530
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: FIELDTURF INC.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: LES INSTALLATIONS SPORTIVES DEFARGO INC.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: TRIEXE MANAGEMENT GROUP INC. d.b.a. SPORTEXE; Third Party: CITY OF LONGUEUIL; Third Party: THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 42; Third Party: CHALEUR MINOR SOCCER; Third Party: SAINT MARY'S UNIVERSITY IN HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Action Motions for Particulars / Interlocutory Motions for Particulars
Outcome
Defargo's motion dismissed; Fieldturf's motion allowed
Legal Topics
Particulars, Prior Art, Waiver, Pleadings Amendment, Discovery, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Particulars Prior Art Waiver Pleadings Amendment Discovery +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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FIELDTURF INC.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

LES INSTALLATIONS SPORTIVES DEFARGO INC.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

TRIEXE MANAGEMENT GROUP INC. d.b.a. SPORTEXE

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

CITY OF LONGUEUIL

Third Party

THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 42

Third Party

CHALEUR MINOR SOCCER

Third Party

SAINT MARY'S UNIVERSITY IN HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Action Motions for Particulars / Interlocutory Motions for Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defargo was entitled to particulars from Fieldturf on the amended statement of claim
  2. 2 Whether Fieldturf was entitled to particulars from Defargo regarding prior art relied on in its amended defence and counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether Defargo had waived its right to seek particulars

Ratio Decidendi

Defargo's motion for particulars was dismissed because the court found Defargo was already familiar with the patents, claims and essential invention (including from prior litigation) and had waived any right to the particulars sought; particulars about Fieldturf products sold to the public were irrelevant at the pleading stage. However, because a defendant must plead prior art precisely, Fieldturf's motion was allowed and Defargo was ordered to provide the detailed particulars specified in Fieldturf's notice of motion and to serve and file a re-amended defence by May 29, 2006; costs were awarded accordingly and subsequent deadlines were adjusted.

Court Disposition

Defargo's motion dismissed; Fieldturf's motion allowed

Orders

  • Defargo's motion is dismissed with costs
  • Fieldturf's motion is allowed with costs