Letourneau et al. v. Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd., (2004) 263 F.T.R. 186 (FC)

Document

Cited authorities 57

Cited in 5

Precedent Map

Court	Federal Court (Canada)
Case Date	November 04, 2003
Jurisdiction	Canada (Federal)
Citations	(2004), 263 F.T.R. 186 (FC);2004 FC 1422

Letourneau v. Clearbrook Iron Works (2004), 263 F.T.R. 186 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.030

John Letourneau and Letourneau Life Rail Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd. (defendant)

(T-1864-00; 2004 FC 1422)

Indexed As: Letourneau et al. v. Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd.

Federal Court

Hargrave, Prothonotary

October 14, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiffs, John Letourneau and Letourneau Life Rail Ltd., owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls. The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd., for patent infringement. Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid, and counterclaimed against the plaintiffs. Issues arose during discovery and two motions were filed. The defendant, Clearbrook, moved to have the plaintiff, John Letourneau, answer various questions, some of which he refused to answer and some of which were taken under advisement, provide further documents and give particulars of the first claim of the patent at issue. The plaintiffs moved for the continuation of the examination for discovery of Schellenberg, of the defendant, Clearbrook, to deal with undertakings, with questions taken under advisement and to answer questions that were refused.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court ordered that both discovery witnesses re-attend to answer questions as required by the reasons of the court and accompanying orders.

Evidence - Topic 4184

Witnesses - Privilege - Husband and wife - What constitutes a privileged communication - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid because it was disclosed to the public - An issue arose as to whether conversations between John Letourneau, the alleged inventor, and his common law wife, relating to disclosure were privileged - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court held that the spousal privilege in s. 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act did not apply to common law relationships and, even if it did, it could only be relied on by the wife in this situation - However, common law privilege applied in this case and the questions in issue did not need to be answered - See paragraphs 59 to 62.

Evidence - Topic 4241

Witness - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Privilege - General - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid - During discovery, a witness for the defendant refused to answer certain questions relating to communications between the witness and certain non-parties on the basis of privilege - The plaintiffs argued that litigation privilege attached to communications conveyed to and by a lawyer for the purposes of litigation, but did not apply to relevant facts within the knowledge of a witness, regardless of the source of the information - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court determined what communications were subject to privilege - See paragraphs 99 to 111.

Evidence - Topic 4245.7

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Common interest privilege - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court discussed the concept of common interest privilege - See paragraphs 106 to 109.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1502

Grounds of invalidity - General - Onus and standard of proof - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, sued the defendant for patent infringement - The defendant challenged the validity of the patent - The identification of the proper patentee was in issue - The defendant referred to the headnote of a Supreme Court of Canada case (S.C.R.) to the effect that the onus of proof was on the inventor not only because he was asserting an affirmative, that he was the inventor, but also because the subject matter of the allegations, concerning the patent, lay particularly within the inventor's knowledge - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court stated that "headnotes are always a dangerous source for any proposition" - The court stated that the case relied on did not particularly assist the defendant and was not on point - In any event, the court stated that the case at bar was not at a point at which the plaintiffs had to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff was the true inventor because the onus was on the party attacking the patent and the statutory presumption of validity remained until the contrary was established - See paragraph 89.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8085

Practice - Pleadings - Particulars - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid because it was disclosed to the public - Clearbrook sought to have John Letourneau, the alleged inventor, provide particulars of the first claim of the patent at issue (i.e., particulars of the features of the plaintiffs' patent which were not found in the rail produced by the defendant Clearbrook) - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court discussed when an order for further particulars would be granted, but refused to order further particulars in this case - See paragraphs 76 to 79.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8085

Practice - Pleadings - Particulars - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court stated that generally, where a defendant attacks the validity of a patent by asserting that a named inventor was not in fact the actual inventor, particulars will be ordered - See paragraph 90.