Installations Sportives Defargo Inc. v. Fieldturf Inc.

Installations Sportives Defargo Inc. v. Fieldturf Inc.

The appeal was allowed because the prothonotary erred in refusing the discovery question by relying on an administrative 'scheme' and related-case distinctions rather than applying the established Reading & Bates relevance tests; the disputed question directly related to pleaded allegations that Defargo sold and installed products with specified characteristics, was relevant to the core issue of non-infringement under s.60(2) of the Patent Act, and therefore the objection was overruled and the question must be answered subject to terms to be set by the prothonotary.

Citation
2006 FC 293
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant to Counterclaim: Les Installations Sportives Defargo Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Fieldturf Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Declaratory Judgment of Non Infringement and Counterclaim for Patent Infringement / Motion to Appeal Prothonotary Discovery Objection Under Federal Courts Rules S.51(1)
Outcome
Appeal granted; objection overruled; question ordered answered; matter referred back to Prothonotary to set terms; costs awarded to defendant (appellant).
Legal Topics
Non Infringement, Examination for Discovery, Relevance of Discovery Questions, Standard of Review for Prothonotary Decisions, Subsection 60(2) Patent Act
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Discovery Declaratory Relief Non Infringement Examination for Discovery Relevance of Discovery Questions Standard of Review for Prothonotary Decisions +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Les Installations Sportives Defargo Inc.

Plaintiff / Defendant to Counterclaim

Fieldturf Inc.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Declaratory Judgment of Non Infringement and Counterclaim for Patent Infringement / Motion to Appeal Prothonotary Discovery Objection Under Federal Courts Rules S.51(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prothonotary erred in sustaining an objection to a discovery question seeking a list of synthetic turf surfaces sold or installed by the plaintiff with specified characteristics
  2. 2 Whether the disputed question was relevant to the issues pleaded and therefore required to be answered on examination for discovery
  3. 3 What standard of review applies to discretionary orders of a prothonotary on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the prothonotary erred in refusing the discovery question by relying on an administrative 'scheme' and related-case distinctions rather than applying the established Reading & Bates relevance tests; the disputed question directly related to pleaded allegations that Defargo sold and installed products with specified characteristics, was relevant to the core issue of non-infringement under s.60(2) of the Patent Act, and therefore the objection was overruled and the question must be answered subject to terms to be set by the prothonotary.

Court Disposition

Appeal granted; objection overruled; question ordered answered; matter referred back to Prothonotary to set terms; costs awarded to defendant (appellant).

Orders

  • The motion on appeal from the decision of the Prothonotary is granted
  • The objection to the discovery question is overruled