Installations sportives Defargo inc. v. Fieldturf Inc.

Installations sportives Defargo inc. v. Fieldturf Inc.

The Prothonotary applied the relevance and proportionality principles from Reading & Bates and related authorities and ordered that specific discovery requests be answered where they bore a real and relevant connection to invalidity and non-infringement issues and where burden was not shown; Requests 3 and 4 (Tarkett), Request 11 (specified documentation), the remaining Category B product-related questions, and Category C (tufting machines) requests must be answered within the parties' agreed time; categories A and D of Fieldturf's motion and Objection 4 in Category B are not discoverable as irrelevant or hypothetical; answers are to be provided within 30 days by continuing and...

Citation
2005 FC 1699
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant to Counterclaim: Les Installations Sportives Defargo Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Fieldturf Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Declaratory Judgment of Non Infringement / Pre Trial Discovery Motions (examinations for Discovery)
Outcome
Motions granted in part and dismissed in part; specific discovery orders issued and motions otherwise dismissed with each party to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Declaratory Judgment, Discovery, Confidentiality, Invalidity, Prior Art
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Declaratory Judgment Discovery Confidentiality Invalidity +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Les Installations Sportives Defargo Inc.

Plaintiff / Defendant to Counterclaim

Fieldturf Inc.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Declaratory Judgment of Non Infringement / Pre Trial Discovery Motions (examinations for Discovery)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific discovery requests are relevant to issues of patent validity and non-infringement
  2. 2 Whether confidentiality obligations to third parties prevent production of relevant documents
  3. 3 Scope of permissible questions on examination for discovery including hypothetical questions

Ratio Decidendi

The Prothonotary applied the relevance and proportionality principles from Reading & Bates and related authorities and ordered that specific discovery requests be answered where they bore a real and relevant connection to invalidity and non-infringement issues and where burden was not shown; Requests 3 and 4 (Tarkett), Request 11 (specified documentation), the remaining Category B product-related questions, and Category C (tufting machines) requests must be answered within the parties' agreed time; categories A and D of Fieldturf's motion and Objection 4 in Category B are not discoverable as irrelevant or hypothetical; answers are to be provided within 30 days by continuing and...

Court Disposition

Motions granted in part and dismissed in part; specific discovery orders issued and motions otherwise dismissed with each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • Answer Requests 3 and 4 concerning Tarkett; confidentiality to third parties does not excuse production of relevant information.
  • Produce documentation described in Request 11: documentation in the possession of Fieldturf (IP) Inc. regarding allegations 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of Federal Court file T-1164-02.