Varco Canada Limited v. Pason Systems Corp.

Varco Canada Limited v. Pason Systems Corp.

The motion was dismissed because the defendants failed the due diligence requirement—the Ensco Letter was publicly available well before trial and defendants (via counsel and PACER records) had opportunities to discover it—and the letter and proposed testimony were too uncertain in date, provenance and reliability to meet the threshold that they would likely change the trial result or create a real risk that justice could not be achieved.

Citation
2011 FC 1140
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): VARCO CANADA LIMITED; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): VARCO, L.P.; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): WILDCAT SERVICES, L.P.; Plaintiff (defendant 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
6 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Civil Action / Motion to Reopen Trial Post Hearing
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Reopening Trial, Due Diligence, Document Production, Witness Credibility, Public Disclosure, Admissibility of Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Evidence Reopening Trial Due Diligence Document Production Witness Credibility Public Disclosure +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VARCO CANADA LIMITED

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

VARCO, L.P.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

WILDCAT SERVICES, L.P.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

WILDCAT SERVICES CANADA, ULC

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

PASON SYSTEMS CORP.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

PASON SYSTEMS INC.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Civil Action / Motion to Reopen Trial Post Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to reopen the trial to admit a newly discovered letter (the Ensco Letter) and obtain additional depositions in the United States
  2. 2 Whether the applicant exercised reasonable diligence to discover the evidence prior to trial
  3. 3 Whether the newly proposed evidence could have changed the result of the trial

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the defendants failed the due diligence requirement—the Ensco Letter was publicly available well before trial and defendants (via counsel and PACER records) had opportunities to discover it—and the letter and proposed testimony were too uncertain in date, provenance and reliability to meet the threshold that they would likely change the trial result or create a real risk that justice could not be achieved.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Motion to reopen the trial dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiffs