Date: 20011109
Docket: T-1244-99
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1226
BETWEEN:
SYMTRON SYSTEMS, INC.
Plaintiff
(Defendant by Counter-claim)
and
I.C.S. INTERNATIONAL CODE FIRE SERVICES NC.
Defendant
(Plaintiff by Counter-claim)
[1] This is a motion for an order appealing the order of Prothonotary Lafrenière dated October 12, 2001, requiring the defendant to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.
[2] The standard of review of a prothonotary's order was set out by MacGuigan J. in Canada v.Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425, at page 463:
Discretionary orders of prothonotaries ought no to be disturbed on appeal to a judge unless:
a) They are clearly wrong in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon the wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts, or
b) They raise questions vital to the final issue of the case.
[3] Counsel for the defendant has admitted that the discretionary order of Prothonotary Lafrenière does not raise questions vital to the final issue of the case.
[4] The defendant suggests that the order is clearly wrong in the sense that the Prothonotary went beyond the scope of his jurisdiction.
[5] Counsel for the defendant is willing to provide a more accurate and complete affidavit of documents pursuant to the order of Prothonotary Lafrenière. Nevertheless, he suggests that the scope of the decision should be narrower and should include the clause "in Canada" so as to make sure that documents from outside Canada, documents which have no connection or nexus to the defendant's activities in Canada, not be included.
[6] Referring to the case Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet-Dominion Inc. (1997), 73 C.P.R. (3d) 321, the defendant suggests that the exclusive rights granted under the Patent Act, are clearly not extra-territorial and are limited to Canada:
A person who beyond Canada, makes, constructs, uses, or sells the invention commits no breach of the Canadian patent. Therefore, the construction of a combination patent abroad is not an infringement, and cannot consequently trigger a domestic contributory infringement.
[7] I have no hesitation in concluding that there is an issue between the parties as to whether the defendant's activities constituted infringement. So far, only two documents were provided by the defendant to the plaintiff, a contract signed in Canada and an annex signed in Germany.
[8] Rules 222 and 223 read:
| 222. (1) In rules 223 to 232 and 295, "document" includes an audio recording, video recording, film, photograph, chart, graph, map, plan, survey, book of account, computer diskette and any other device on which information is recorded or stored. Interpretation 222(2) (2) For the purposes of rules 223 to 232 and 295, a document of a party is relevant if the party intends to rely on it or if the document tends to adversely affect the party's case or to support another party's case. Time for service of affidavit of documents 223(1) 223. (1) Every party shall serve an affidavit of documents on every other party within 30 days after the close of pleadings. Contents 223(2) (2) An affidavit of documents shall be in Form 223 and shall contain (a) separate lists and descriptions of all relevant documents that (i) are in the possession, power or control of the party and for which no privilege is claimed, (ii) are or were in the possession, power or control of the party and for which privilege is claimed,(iii) were but are no longer in the possession, power or control of the party and for which no privilege is claimed, and (iv) the party believes are in the possession, power or control of a person who is not a party to the action; (b) a statement of the grounds for each claim of privilege in respect of a document; (c) a description of how the party lost possession, power or control of any document and its current location, as far as the party can determine; (d) the identity of each person referred to in subparagraph (a)(iv), including the person's name and address, if known; (e) a statement that the party is not aware of any relevant document, other than those that are listed in the affidavit or are or were in the possession, power or control of another party to the action; and (f) an indication of the time and place at which the documents referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) may be inspected. Document within party's power or control 223(3) (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a document shall be considered to be within a party's power or control if (a) the party is entitled to obtain the original document or a copy of it; and (b) no adverse party is so entitled. Bundle of documents 223(4) (4) A party may treat a bundle of documents as a single document for the purposes of an affidavit of documents if (a) the documents are all of the same nature; and (b) the bundle is described in sufficient detail to enable another party to clearly ascertain its contents. |
222. (1) Pour l'application des règles 223 à 232 et 295, est assimilée à un document toute information enregistrée ou mise en mémoire sur un support, y compris un enregistrement sonore, un enregistrement vidéo, un film, une photographie, un diagramme, un graphique, une carte, un plan, un relevé, un registre comptable et une disquette. Pertinence 222(2) (2) Pour l'application des règles 223 à 232 et 295, un document d'une partie est pertinent si la partie entend l'invoquer ou si le document est susceptible d'être préjudiciable à sa cause ou d'appuyer la cause d'une autre partie. Délai de signification de l'affidavit de documents 223(1) 223. (1) Chaque partie signifie un affidavit de documents aux autres parties dans les 30 jours suivant la clôture des actes de procédure. Contenu 223(2) (2) L'affidavit de documents est établi selon la formule 223 et contient : a) des listes séparées et des descriptions de tous les documents pertinents : (i) qui sont en la possession, sous l'autorité ou sous la garde de la partie et à l'égard desquels aucun privilège de non-divulgation n'est revendiqué, (ii) qui sont ou étaient en la possession, sous l'autorité ou sous la garde de la partie et à l'égard desquels un privilège de non-divulgation est revendiqué, (iii) qui étaient mais ne sont plus en la possession, sous l'autorité ou sous la garde de la partie et à l'égard desquels aucun privilège de non-divulgation n'est revendiqué, (iv) que la partie croit être en la possession, sous l'autorité ou sous la garde d'une personne qui n'est pas partie à l'action; b) un exposé des motifs de chaque revendication de privilège de non-divulgation à l'égard d'un document; c) un énoncé expliquant comment un document a cessé d'être en la possession, sous l'autorité ou sous la garde de la partie et indiquant où le document se trouve actuellement, dans la mesure où il lui est possible de le déterminer; d) les renseignements permettant d'identifier toute personne visée au sous-alinéa a)(iv), y compris ses nom et adresse s'ils sont connus; e) une déclaration attestant que la partie n'a pas connaissance de l'existence de documents pertinents autres que ceux qui sont énumérés dans l'affidavit ou ceux qui sont ou étaient en la possession, sous l'autorité ou sous la garde d'une autre partie à l'action; f) une mention précisant les dates, heures et lieux où les documents visés au sous-alinéa a)(i) peuvent être examinés. Document sous l'autorité ou la garde d'une partie 223(3) (3) Pour l'application du paragraphe (2), un document est considéré comme étant sous l'autorité ou sous la garde d'une partie si : a) d'une part, celle-ci a le droit d'en obtenir l'original ou une copie; b) d'autre part, aucune partie adverse ne jouit de ce droit. Liasse de documents 223(4) (4) Aux fins de l'établissement de l'affidavit de documents, une partie peut répertorier une liasse de documents comme un seul document si : a) d'une part, les documents sont tous de même nature; b) d'autre part, la description de la liasse est suffisamment détaillée pour qu'une autre partie puisse avoir une idée juste de son contenu. |
|
[9] I agree with counsel for the plaintiff that this is not the forum to make a pre-trial determination of the issues of infringement. I also agree with counsel for the plaintiff that infringement is not defined in the Patent Act but has been defined in Canadian jurisprudence over the years.
[10] The Court is not yet aware when the sale was concluded, who were the parties to any contracts and where the components come from; counsel for the defendant told the Court, at the hearing, that some components come from outside the country and that the trainer was assembled in Germany and that this did not constitute infringement.
[11] In my view, it will be up to the trial judge to decide whether there was infringement or not. At this stage, the parties are still providing affidavits of documents to allow the Court to eventually have a full picture of the situation in order to make a decision on the issue of infringement.
[12] At this time, the issue to determine is whether or not the Prothonotary exercised his discretion judicially in making the decision.
[13] I do not think that it would be reasonable for the defendant to decide, based on its own view on the issue of infringement, which documents should be provided.
[14] In my view, the defendant failed to convince the Court that the order of Prothonotary Lafrenière was clearly wrong or was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts.
O R D E R
[15] Therefore, the appeal from the order of Prothonotary Lafrenière, dated October 12, 2001 is dismissed with costs in favour of the plaintiff.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 9, 2001