Gauthier v. Produits de Sport I-Tech Inc.
Court headnote
Gauthier v. Produits de Sport I-Tech Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-04-22 Neutral citation 2003 FCT 468 File numbers T-1669-01 Decision Content Date : 20030422 Docket : T-1669-01 Citation: 2003 FCT 468 BETWEEN : JEAN-MARC GAUTHIER Plaintiff/ Defendant by counterclaim AND : LES PRODUITS DE SPORT I-TECH INC. Defendant/ Plaintiff by Counterclaim ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER ROULEAU J. [1] The defendant, plaintiff by counterclaim, seeks an order pursuant to Rule 107 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, directing that the quantum of damages incurred by the plaintiff flowing from any infringement of the defendant's rights be the subject of a separate proceeding after trial. [2] The Statement of Claim alleges that twelve (12) of the defendant's products infringe Canadian Patent No. 1,172,803. [3] After having been approached by counsel for the defendant to consent to a bifurcation Order, counsel for the plaintiff denied the request. [4] The determination of profits, as claimed, at this stage of the proceeding would require an expensive enquiry by the defendant into 12 different impugned protectors built into sports equipment and manufactured by the defendant company. [5] It is submitted that pre-trial examinations as well as evidence at trial would be lengthy and expensive to both parties. It is further suggested that because of the expiry of the patent there is some dispute as to what years limitations may apply. [6] Further it is argued that plaintiff's dama…
Read full judgment
Gauthier v. Produits de Sport I-Tech Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-04-22 Neutral citation 2003 FCT 468 File numbers T-1669-01 Decision Content Date : 20030422 Docket : T-1669-01 Citation: 2003 FCT 468 BETWEEN : JEAN-MARC GAUTHIER Plaintiff/ Defendant by counterclaim AND : LES PRODUITS DE SPORT I-TECH INC. Defendant/ Plaintiff by Counterclaim ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER ROULEAU J. [1] The defendant, plaintiff by counterclaim, seeks an order pursuant to Rule 107 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, directing that the quantum of damages incurred by the plaintiff flowing from any infringement of the defendant's rights be the subject of a separate proceeding after trial. [2] The Statement of Claim alleges that twelve (12) of the defendant's products infringe Canadian Patent No. 1,172,803. [3] After having been approached by counsel for the defendant to consent to a bifurcation Order, counsel for the plaintiff denied the request. [4] The determination of profits, as claimed, at this stage of the proceeding would require an expensive enquiry by the defendant into 12 different impugned protectors built into sports equipment and manufactured by the defendant company. [5] It is submitted that pre-trial examinations as well as evidence at trial would be lengthy and expensive to both parties. It is further suggested that because of the expiry of the patent there is some dispute as to what years limitations may apply. [6] Further it is argued that plaintiff's damages or accounting of profits of the defendant are distinct from infringement and validity issues and it would be less costly to both parties to first determine the matter on the merits and thus bifurcation would be a logical step. Bifurcation would result in a more expeditious and less expensive determination of this proceeding on the merits. [7] The only valid argument offered by the plaintiff who resisted bifurcation was to the effect that if the Court refused to grant the Order it may speed up the proceeding since having knowledge of all the defendant's business activities may lead to a settlement of the issue. [8] Bifurcation is discretionary; I have considered all submissions and taken into account all relevant elements. I have been satisfied that bifurcation is practical and gives rise to economies of scale for both sides. Further I have been persuaded that it would expedite matters and be less costly for a plaintiff who probably does not have the resources that are available to the defendant company. There is also a clear and distinct issue between a determination on the merits and damages in these proceedings. [9] Pursuant to Rule 107 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, I hereby direct that any issue as to the quantum of damages incurred by the plaintiff flowing from, or the defendant's profits arising from, any infringement of the plaintiff's rights to be the subject of a separate proceeding after Trial. [10] All issues with respect to establishing a timetable for exchange of documents, discoveries and other proceedings to be determined by the Case Management Judge. JUDGE OTTAWA, Ontario April 22, 2003 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1669-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN-MARC GAUTHIER v. LES PRODUITS DE SPORT I-TECH INC. PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal DATE OF HEARING: April 7, 2003 REASONS FOR : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROULEAU DATED: April 22, 2003 APPEARANCES: Mr. Pascal Lauzon FOR PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM Mr. George R. Locke FOR DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Pascal Lauzon FOR PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT Montreal, Quebec BY COUNTERCLAIM Mr. David R. Collier / Mr. George R. Locke FOR DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF Montreal, Quebec BY COUNTERCLAIM
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca