Eurocopter c. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited

Eurocopter c. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited

Applying the relevance test and balancing probative value against burden under Rule 242, the court overruled many objections and ordered Bell to answer specified undertakings and questions by August 22, 2009, while exempting a defined set of questions; the court declined to restrict attendance at continued discovery and awarded costs to Eurocopter.

Citation
2009 FC 836
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: EUROCOPTER (simplified joint stock company); Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON CANADA LIMITED
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (canadian Patent No. 2,205,787); Counterclaim for Invalidity / Interlocutory Motion to Determine Objections on Examination for Discovery (pre Trial Discovery)
Outcome
Motion allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity (counterclaim), Examination for Discovery, Disclosure and Relevance, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Evidence Discovery Patent Infringement Patent Validity (counterclaim) Examination for Discovery +2 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EUROCOPTER (simplified joint stock company)

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON CANADA LIMITED

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (canadian Patent No. 2,205,787); Counterclaim for Invalidity / Interlocutory Motion to Determine Objections on Examination for Discovery (pre Trial Discovery)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific discovery questions are relevant to unadmitted allegations in the pleadings
  2. 2 Whether questions impose unreasonable or unduly onerous inquiries under Rule 242
  3. 3 Whether the probative value of answers outweighs burden and expense

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the relevance test and balancing probative value against burden under Rule 242, the court overruled many objections and ordered Bell to answer specified undertakings and questions by August 22, 2009, while exempting a defined set of questions; the court declined to restrict attendance at continued discovery and awarded costs to Eurocopter.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part.

Orders

  • Bell Helicopter shall, on or before August 22, 2009, respond to the ten undertakings to which it is committed and to the discovery questions ordered answered in the Table Regarding the Plaintiff's Motion, except for questions withdrawn and except for specified excluded questions.
  • The following questions are excluded and need not be answered: 3 to 6, 9, 10, 22, 25 to 29, 37 to 39, 44, 46, 53, 56, 57, 61, 64 to 67, 70 to 78, 80, 81, 97, 155 to 157.