Technique d'usinage Sinlab inc. v. Biocad médical inc.

Technique d'usinage Sinlab inc. v. Biocad médical inc.

The court held the disputed requests and undertaking were sufficiently relevant and not impermissible fishing: Sinlab must provide full replies to undertakings 25, 27, 32 (excluding privileged parts) and 33 because they could reveal information about the accused manufacturing method/software; Biocad’s undertaking U-12 was sufficiently circumscribed and relevant to allegations of invalidity and must be answered; follow-up examinations arising from those answers were permitted; costs were awarded to the successful moving parties.

Citation
2012 FC 122
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Technique d'usinage Sinlab Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Biocad Médical Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Nobel Biocare Canada Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Pre Trial Discovery – Motions on Examination for Discovery Objections and Undertakings
Outcome
Motions granted in part: Sinlab ordered to answer specified undertakings; Biocad’s motion to enforce undertaking U-12 granted; parties permitted follow-up questioning; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Validity (anticipation, Obviousness, Abandonment), Examination for Discovery, Document Production, Undertakings, Privilege
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Discovery Patent Infringement Validity (anticipation, Obviousness, Abandonment) Examination for Discovery Document Production +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Technique d'usinage Sinlab Inc.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

Biocad Médical Inc.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Nobel Biocare Canada Inc.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Pre Trial Discovery – Motions on Examination for Discovery Objections and Undertakings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified discovery requests and undertakings are relevant and must be answered
  2. 2 Scope and limits of discovery as applied to alleged method/software for manufacturing dental implant superstructures
  3. 3 Whether undertaking U-12 is appropriately circumscribed and relevant to invalidity defences

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the disputed requests and undertaking were sufficiently relevant and not impermissible fishing: Sinlab must provide full replies to undertakings 25, 27, 32 (excluding privileged parts) and 33 because they could reveal information about the accused manufacturing method/software; Biocad’s undertaking U-12 was sufficiently circumscribed and relevant to allegations of invalidity and must be answered; follow-up examinations arising from those answers were permitted; costs were awarded to the successful moving parties.

Court Disposition

Motions granted in part: Sinlab ordered to answer specified undertakings; Biocad’s motion to enforce undertaking U-12 granted; parties permitted follow-up questioning; costs awarded.

Orders

  • Defendants to provide full and satisfactory replies to undertakings 25, 27, 32 (except any privileged parts) and 33 from the examination of Erik Norström by February 20, 2012
  • Sinlab allowed to pursue and complete examination of defendants' representative Erik Norström on the answers provided and any reasonable follow-up arising from those answers within thirty days after the answers are sent