![]() B&P countered that each company in the family is a separate legal entity and that B&P had retainers with some of those specific entities at various times. The applicants submitted that the Bell family of companies is one client. Several other companies are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Bell Canada, including Bell Aliant Inc (the parent of Bell Aliant). could be described as the parent company for several other separate corporations. While there may be some circumstances where related companies could be considered as one entity and one client, the circumstances in the present case do not lead to that conclusion.” īCE Inc. The Court held that “he Bell family of companies as a whole was not the current or former client of B&P. In this motion, the applicants sought an order removing B&P as solicitors of record for MediaTube on the basis that, due to their past and current relationship as a client of B&P, there is a conflict of interest and B&P must, therefore, be disqualified from representing MediaTube in the main action. MediaTube is represented by Bereskin and Parr (“B&P”). This motion arose in the context of an action by MediaTube and NorthVu, which claims the defendants, Bell Canada and Bell Aliant, collectively the “applicants” in this motion, infringed Canadian Patent No. and Northvu Inc v Bell Canada et al, 2014 FC 237 This decision was upheld on appeal.Mediatube Corp. He awarded Bell elevated costs of the action. The trial judge held that the 477 Patent was valid and not infringed. Both parties argued that they were entitled to elevated costs. During oral submissions at the end of the trial, however, MediaTube maintained that certain claims of the 477 Patent were infringed, but only by virtue of the fact that Bell’s system could be modified to incorporate all of the essential elements of those claims. ![]() ![]() Second, it withdrew the claim for punitive damages. First, it acknowledged that Bell had never infringed the 477 Patent. As a result, at trial, MediaTube made two major admissions. In the months leading up to the trial, Bell corrected some of the answers it gave during discoveries concerning its Fibe TV and FibreOp TV systems. Bell denied infringement and asserted that the claims of the 477 Patent were invalid. MediaTube Corp., licencee of the 477 Patent, brought a patent infringement action against Bell Canada and Bell Aliant Regional Communcations (collectively, “Bell”), alleging that their 477 Patent had been infringed by Bell’s Fibe TV and FibreOp TV services and severely damaged their business. ![]() (SEALING ORDER) (COURT FILE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY THE PUBLIC) They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only. Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. Intellectual property - Patents, Civil procedure - Intellectual property - Patents - Claims construction - Civil procedure - Representation by counsel - Official languages - Patent declared valid and not infringed - Applicant disputing manner in which claims of patent were construed - If and when is it permissible to import language from a patent specification into the claims of a patent? - Court of Appeal dismissing applicant’s motion to make submissions in French language - Should court deny a party’s written request for bilingual hearing, in these circumstances? - Has Court of Appeal inappropriately created a discriminatory access to justice barrier?Ĭase summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). (Sealing order) (Certain information not available to the public) Keywords
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |