Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

The appeal is dismissed because Prothonotary Morneau did not misapply the law nor misapprehend the facts in refusing to compel answers; his determinations that the questions were irrelevant, sought opinion or would lead to disproportionate or privileged inquiry were within his discretionary case-management authority and attract deference; the costs award was a proper exercise of discretion given the scope of Gore's motion.

Citation
2015 FC 1176
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendants by Counterclaim: Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.; Plaintiff / Defendants by Counterclaim: Bard Canada Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: W.L. Gore & Associates Canada Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Invalidity Counterclaim / Appeal of Prothonotary Discovery Order (pre Trial Discovery/case Management)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Invalidity, Sufficiency of Disclosure, Discovery Relevance, Oral Discovery, Privilege, Proportionality, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Discovery Costs Patent Infringement Patent Invalidity Sufficiency of Disclosure +5 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Plaintiff / Defendants by Counterclaim

Bard Canada Inc.

Plaintiff / Defendants by Counterclaim

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

Defendant / Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

W.L. Gore & Associates Canada Inc.

Defendant / Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Invalidity Counterclaim / Appeal of Prothonotary Discovery Order (pre Trial Discovery/case Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Prothonotary Morneau erred in refusing to compel answers to discovery questions (Prosecution, Aneurysm, Pore Size)
  2. 2 Whether refusal to compel answers involved misapplication of relevance law or took into account wrong principles
  3. 3 Whether questions improperly sought opinion, legal conclusions or privileged communications

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because Prothonotary Morneau did not misapply the law nor misapprehend the facts in refusing to compel answers; his determinations that the questions were irrelevant, sought opinion or would lead to disproportionate or privileged inquiry were within his discretionary case-management authority and attract deference; the costs award was a proper exercise of discretion given the scope of Gore's motion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Motion on appeal of Prothonotary Morneau's Order dated August 24, 2015 dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiffs/Defendants by counterclaim to be assessed in accordance with Column III of the table to Tariff B, payable in any event of the cause