Seedlings Life Science Ventures, LLC v. Pfizer Canada Inc.

Seedlings Life Science Ventures, LLC v. Pfizer Canada Inc.

The Prothonotary erred in law by applying a novel test privileging the implied undertaking/private agreement framework; the correct binding test is the Sierra Club formulation (from the Supreme Court of Canada, as informed by AB Hassle/Wellcome) which applies to protective, confidentiality and hybrid orders. The Draft Protective Order met that test because it covered categories of information customarily treated as confidential and disclosure would likely harm proprietary, commercial and scientific interests; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the Draft Protective Order is issued.

Citation
2018 FC 956
Parties
Plaintiff: Seedlings Life Science Ventures, LLC; Defendant/appellant: Pfizer Canada Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement; Protective Order Dispute / Appeal From Prothonotary Order Dismissing Motion for Protective Order; Pre Trial/discovery
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Prothonotary's order set aside; Draft Protective Order issued; no costs awarded
Legal Topics
Protective Order, Confidentiality Order, Implied Undertaking Rule, Rule 151, Open Court Principle, Sierra Club Test
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Evidence and Discovery Administrative/federal Court Practice Protective Order Confidentiality Order Implied Undertaking Rule Rule 151 +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seedlings Life Science Ventures, LLC

Plaintiff

Pfizer Canada Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement; Protective Order Dispute / Appeal From Prothonotary Order Dismissing Motion for Protective Order; Pre Trial/discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sierra Club test applies to protective orders governing pre-trial exchange of confidential information
  2. 2 Whether the Prothonotary erred in law by applying a different test and dismissing the motion for a protective order
  3. 3 Whether the implied undertaking rule and private agreements suffice to protect confidential discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The Prothonotary erred in law by applying a novel test privileging the implied undertaking/private agreement framework; the correct binding test is the Sierra Club formulation (from the Supreme Court of Canada, as informed by AB Hassle/Wellcome) which applies to protective, confidentiality and hybrid orders. The Draft Protective Order met that test because it covered categories of information customarily treated as confidential and disclosure would likely harm proprietary, commercial and scientific interests; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the Draft Protective Order is issued.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Prothonotary's order set aside; Draft Protective Order issued; no costs awarded

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed
  • The Draft Protective Order is issued