Varco Canada Limited v. Pason Systems Corp.

Varco Canada Limited v. Pason Systems Corp.

The motion was dismissed because it was premature given the narrow purpose of the re-opened trial (admission of the Bates file and corrected Bowden evidence), the defendants failed to show the proposed witnesses' evidence would be relevant to that purpose, and there was insufficient time to secure a U.S. subpoena to compel attendance.

Citation
2011 FC 1318
Parties
Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim): VARCO CANADA LIMITED; Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim): VARCO, L.P.; Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim): WILDCAT SERVICES, L.P.; Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim): WILDCAT SERVICES CANADA, ULC; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): PASON SYSTEMS CORP.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): PASON SYSTEMS INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent (patentee Dispute) / Motion During Re Opened Trial (motion to Expand Commission Evidence; November 2011)
Outcome
Defendants' motion dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Re Opening Trial, Rebuttal Evidence, Letters of Request (letters Rogatory), Subpoena Enforcement, Relevancy of Evidence, Commission Evidence
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Evidence International Judicial Assistance Re Opening Trial Rebuttal Evidence Letters of Request (letters Rogatory) Subpoena Enforcement +2 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VARCO CANADA LIMITED

Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim)

VARCO, L.P.

Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim)

WILDCAT SERVICES, L.P.

Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim)

WILDCAT SERVICES CANADA, ULC

Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim)

PASON SYSTEMS CORP.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

PASON SYSTEMS INC.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patent (patentee Dispute) / Motion During Re Opened Trial (motion to Expand Commission Evidence; November 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants may call Messrs. Doughtie and Finney as rebuttal witnesses at the re-opened trial
  2. 2 Whether new letters of request should be issued to compel attendance of Mr. Doughtie in the U.S.
  3. 3 Whether proposed evidence is relevant to the limited purpose of the re-opened trial

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because it was premature given the narrow purpose of the re-opened trial (admission of the Bates file and corrected Bowden evidence), the defendants failed to show the proposed witnesses' evidence would be relevant to that purpose, and there was insufficient time to secure a U.S. subpoena to compel attendance.

Court Disposition

Defendants' motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Defendants' motion dismissed with costs