Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. et al. v. Gore (W.L.) & Associates Inc. et al., 2015 FC 1176

• Judge: LeBlanc, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 29, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 1176;[2015] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.030

Bard Peripheral Vascular v. Gore & Assoc., [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.030

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for F.T.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.030

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and Bard Canada Inc. (plaintiff/defendants by counterclaim) v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. and W.L. Gore & Associates Canada Inc. (defendant/plaintiffs by counterclaim)

(T-2105-13; 2015 FC 1176)

Indexed As: Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. et al. v. Gore (W.L.) & Associates Inc. et al.

Federal Court

LeBlanc, J.

October 16, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiffs ("Bard") sued the defendants (collectively, "Gore") seeking a declaration that Gore had infringed Canadian Patent No. 1,341, 519 ("519 Patent"), as well as injunctive relief and damages, including punitive and exemplary damages. Gore denied infringement and counterclaimed that the 519 Patent was invalid for, inter alia, lack of utility, insufficient disclosure, overbreadth, and co-inventorship. Gore sought to compel answers from Bard's representative on 450 questions posed to him during discovery. A Case Management Prothonotary ordered that 13 of the questions be answered, holding that most of the disputed questions did not need to be answered, either because they were not relevant to unadmitted allegations of fact or because they sought expert opinion, legal conclusions, or expressions of opinion or state of mind. Given the limited success and being of the view that Gore's motion to compel answers, by its magnitude, was unreasonable and excessive, the Prothonotary awarded costs to Bard at the top of Column IV of the Tariff. Gore appealed.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 2583

Registrars and prothonotaries - Appeals from - Scope of review - See paragraphs 13 to 17 and 31.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8106

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Questions which must be answered - See paragraphs 19 to 28.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8107

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Questions which need not be answered - See paragraphs 19 to 44.

Practice - Topic 37

Actions - Conduct of - General - Case management - See paragraphs 16 and 31.

Practice - Topic 4151

Discovery - General principles - Nature and scope of discovery - See paragraphs 19 to 44.

Practice - Topic 4185

Discovery - Examination - General - Costs - General - See paragraphs 45 to 48.

Counsel:

Joanne Chriqui and Eric Bellemare, for the plaintiff;

Jonathan Giraldi and Sean Jackson, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Norton Rose Fulbright, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Aitken Klee, LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 29, 2015, by LeBlanc, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 16, 2015.