Bauer Nike Hockey Inc. v. Regan

Bauer Nike Hockey Inc. v. Regan

The prothonotary did not err in dismissing the late motion to compel: even assuming many of the 130 questions were proper fact questions for the inventor, BNH failed to comply with the case management scheduling deadline and there was no clear error or misuse of discretion to justify overturning the prothonotary's discretionary order.

Citation
2005 FC 20
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Bauer Nike Hockey Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Paul Regan
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Patent Litigation: Review of Prothonotary Discovery Decision / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision on Motion to Compel Answers to Examination for Discovery Questions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent, Examination for Discovery, Motion to Compel, Scheduling Orders, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Discovery Case Management Patent Examination for Discovery Motion to Compel Scheduling Orders +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bauer Nike Hockey Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Paul Regan

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Patent Litigation: Review of Prothonotary Discovery Decision / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision on Motion to Compel Answers to Examination for Discovery Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion to compel was brought within the case management scheduling deadline
  2. 2 Whether the 130 discovery questions were proper or impermissibly required interpretation of the patent
  3. 3 Whether the prothonotary improperly exercised or misapplied discretion such that the decision was clearly wrong

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary did not err in dismissing the late motion to compel: even assuming many of the 130 questions were proper fact questions for the inventor, BNH failed to comply with the case management scheduling deadline and there was no clear error or misuse of discretion to justify overturning the prothonotary's discretionary order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Costs in the cause