Airbus Helicopters v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

Airbus Helicopters v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

The court held that section 7 of the Canada Evidence Act applies to the proceeding as a whole (bifurcation under Rule 107 does not create a new proceeding for the purposes of s.7), that expert reports served in the liability phase count toward the five-expert limit, and that the threshold for leave under Rule 52.4 is high; applying those principles the court denied Bell leave to call two additional experts (Dupuis and Wojnar) but permitted Bell to present and rely on the reports and testimony of Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Schwartz (resulting in one expert allowed above the five-expert statutory limit), reserving other objections for trial.

Citation
2016 FC 590
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Airbus Helicopters; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Damages Quantification Phase of Bifurcated Proceeding; Motion for Leave to Call Expert Witnesses Prior to Trial on Quantum of Damages
Outcome
Motion dismissed in part and allowed in part: leave to call additional experts denied for two proposed experts (Dupuis and Wojnar); Bell permitted to call Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Schwartz (one expert above the five limit) subject to substitution and timely notice; all other objections reserved for trial.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence Limit, Bifurcation, Punitive Damages, Reasonable Royalty, Leave to Call Expert Witnesses
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Evidence Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Limit Bifurcation Punitive Damages Reasonable Royalty +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Airbus Helicopters

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Damages Quantification Phase of Bifurcated Proceeding; Motion for Leave to Call Expert Witnesses Prior to Trial on Quantum of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 7 of the Canada Evidence Act limits expert witnesses across a bifurcated proceeding or per issue/stage
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted under Rule 52.4 to call more than five expert witnesses and, specifically, whether Bell may call two additional experts (Dupuis and Wojnar)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 7 of the Canada Evidence Act applies to the proceeding as a whole (bifurcation under Rule 107 does not create a new proceeding for the purposes of s.7), that expert reports served in the liability phase count toward the five-expert limit, and that the threshold for leave under Rule 52.4 is high; applying those principles the court denied Bell leave to call two additional experts (Dupuis and Wojnar) but permitted Bell to present and rely on the reports and testimony of Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Schwartz (resulting in one expert allowed above the five-expert statutory limit), reserving other objections for trial.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed in part and allowed in part: leave to call additional experts denied for two proposed experts (Dupuis and Wojnar); Bell permitted to call Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Schwartz (one expert above the five limit) subject to substitution and timely notice; all other objections reserved for trial.

Orders

  • Motion by Bell to present reports and testimony of Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Wojnar denied
  • Bell is permitted to present and rely upon the expert reports and testimony of Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Schwartz at the damages trial