Tremblay v. Orio Canada Inc.

Tremblay v. Orio Canada Inc.

Plaintiff (through his employees) authored the modified SAM program and therefore owns the copyright; the written bids clause evidenced an intention to assign but lacked the plaintiff's signature so did not satisfy s 13(4) and no assignment occurred; the parties' conduct gave the defendant an implied licence to use and market the modified SAM program; because the plaintiff consented by implication there was no infringement under s 27.

Citation
2013 FC 109
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant to Counterclaim: Doris Tremblay; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Orio Canada Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement / Summary Trial (motion Under Federal Courts Rules 213 219)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff on ownership; no assignment; implied user licence granted to defendant; no copyright infringement; costs to be borne by each party.
Legal Topics
Ownership of Copyright, Assignment of Copyright, Implied Licence, Copyright Infringement, Summary Trial
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Copyright Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Ownership of Copyright Assignment of Copyright Implied Licence Copyright Infringement +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doris Tremblay

Plaintiff / Defendant to Counterclaim

Orio Canada Inc.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement / Summary Trial (motion Under Federal Courts Rules 213 219)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who owns the copyright in the modified SAM program?
  2. 2 Whether the copyright was assigned to the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the defendant infringed the plaintiff's copyright

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff (through his employees) authored the modified SAM program and therefore owns the copyright; the written bids clause evidenced an intention to assign but lacked the plaintiff's signature so did not satisfy s 13(4) and no assignment occurred; the parties' conduct gave the defendant an implied licence to use and market the modified SAM program; because the plaintiff consented by implication there was no infringement under s 27.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff on ownership; no assignment; implied user licence granted to defendant; no copyright infringement; costs to be borne by each party.

Orders

  • The plaintiff owns the copyright in the modified SAM program.
  • The plaintiff did not assign his copyright in the modified SAM program to the defendant.