Throttle Control Tech Inc. v. Precision Drilling Corporation

Throttle Control Tech Inc. v. Precision Drilling Corporation

The Court held that many of Precision Drilling's pleadings were sufficiently particularized for the purpose of pleading and denied most of Throttle Control's requests for further particulars, but found the use of open‑ended preservation language impermissible and struck the phrase "but without limiting the generality of the previous paragraph" in paragraphs 7, 9 and 11; it ordered Precision Drilling to provide the specific additional particulars requested in References 3, 6 and 16 (relating to Schedules A, B and C) within 10 days, prohibited Precision Drilling from reserving the right to rely on unspecified future documents, directed that the action continue as a specially managed...

Citation
2010 FC 1085
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: Throttle Control Tech Inc.; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Precision Drilling Corporation; Defendant: Precision Drilling Limited Partnership; Defendant: Precision Drilling Trust; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Victory Rig Equipment Corporation; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Trinidad Drilling Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (canadian Letters Patent No. 2,500,253) With Counterclaim for Invalidity / Pre Trial Motion for Particulars and Case Management (motions Heard Oct 18, 2010; Reasons Nov 4, 2010)
Outcome
Cross‑motions resolved in part: action ordered to continue as specially managed proceeding; specified particulars ordered; certain pleadings struck; no costs awarded to either party.
Legal Topics
Patent Invalidity, Particulars/further Particulars, Case Management, Discovery and Disclosure
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Patent Invalidity Particulars/further Particulars Case Management Discovery and Disclosure

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Throttle Control Tech Inc.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Precision Drilling Corporation

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Precision Drilling Limited Partnership

Defendant

Precision Drilling Trust

Defendant

Victory Rig Equipment Corporation

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Trinidad Drilling Ltd.

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (canadian Letters Patent No. 2,500,253) With Counterclaim for Invalidity / Pre Trial Motion for Particulars and Case Management (motions Heard Oct 18, 2010; Reasons Nov 4, 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars requested by plaintiff are material facts or merely evidence
  2. 2 Whether Precision Drilling's pleadings provided sufficient particulars to enable a responsive pleading
  3. 3 Whether the recurring phrase "but without limiting the generality of the previous paragraph" renders pleadings impermissibly open‑ended and should be struck

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that many of Precision Drilling's pleadings were sufficiently particularized for the purpose of pleading and denied most of Throttle Control's requests for further particulars, but found the use of open‑ended preservation language impermissible and struck the phrase "but without limiting the generality of the previous paragraph" in paragraphs 7, 9 and 11; it ordered Precision Drilling to provide the specific additional particulars requested in References 3, 6 and 16 (relating to Schedules A, B and C) within 10 days, prohibited Precision Drilling from reserving the right to rely on unspecified future documents, directed that the action continue as a specially managed...

Court Disposition

Cross‑motions resolved in part: action ordered to continue as specially managed proceeding; specified particulars ordered; certain pleadings struck; no costs awarded to either party.

Orders

  • This action shall continue as a specially managed proceeding.
  • The matter is referred to the Chief Justice for assignment of a case management judge.