Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

The Prothonotary erred by sustaining objections to multiple discovery questions that sought factual, non-expert information about the accused landing gear and by treating qualitative scope-of-infringement and prior-art clarification questions as irrelevant; accordingly Eurocopter is entitled to the specified answers and undertakings (except to a question seeking an opinion), and commercially sensitive Transport Canada documents are producible for counsel inspection only.

Citation
2009 FC 1142
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Eurocopter; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Civil / Pre Trial Discovery; Motion for Appeal Under Federal Courts Rules R.51(1) From Prothonotary's Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part (granted except for question 11); costs awarded to Eurocopter
Legal Topics
Infringement, Invalidity, Scope of Discovery, Examination for Discovery, Relevance, Commercial Sensitivity
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Discovery Infringement Invalidity Scope of Discovery 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eurocopter

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Civil / Pre Trial Discovery; Motion for Appeal Under Federal Courts Rules R.51(1) From Prothonotary's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific discovery questions about accused landing gear components are factual and relevant or require expert interpretation of the patent
  2. 2 Whether questions 17-19 re: dampers/shock absorbers are relevant to usefulness and infringement
  3. 3 Whether documents submitted to Transport Canada are relevant and subject to protection due to commercial sensitivity

Ratio Decidendi

The Prothonotary erred by sustaining objections to multiple discovery questions that sought factual, non-expert information about the accused landing gear and by treating qualitative scope-of-infringement and prior-art clarification questions as irrelevant; accordingly Eurocopter is entitled to the specified answers and undertakings (except to a question seeking an opinion), and commercially sensitive Transport Canada documents are producible for counsel inspection only.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part (granted except for question 11); costs awarded to Eurocopter

Orders

  • Motion for appeal granted except for question 11
  • Bell to provide answers and undertakings to questions 5 to 10, 12 to 14, 17 to 19, 26 to 32, 36, 40 to 60 and 67 within five days