Date: 20001108
Docket: T-2006-99
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2000
PRESENT: Mr. RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
Between:
CAMOPLAST INC.
Plaintiff/
Defendant by counterclaim
AND
SOUCY INTERNATIONAL INC.
Defendant/
Plaintiff by counterclaim
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY:
[1] These are four motions in all before me in this case and file T-2007-99 -- two by Camoplast Inc. (Camoplast) and two by Soucy International Inc. (Soucy) -- for decisions on objections raised during examinations for discovery of the parties' representatives.
[2] I will dispose of these motions in the order in which they were presented and only in regard to the remaining points in dispute between the parties.
Motion by Soucy in file T-2006-99
[3] Questions 188 and 189 are addressed not to the interpretation of the patent but to the identification of specific items. The witness can therefore answer them. These questions should therefore be answered.
[4] Question 205 need not be answered since the determination of unnecessary embodiments -- the ultimate purpose of the question -- should be directed to an expert.
[5] In regard to questions 411, 512, 513 and 40, as was agreed in Court, Soucy will produce better photos, and consequently these questions will have to be answered subject to any future objections.
[6] Question 453 is addressed to an interpretation of the patent and need not be answered.
[7] Questions 594, 633 and 637 are addressed to the validity of the Lecours patent, which is not at issue. They are therefore irrelevant and need not be answered.
[8] In regard to question 38 of June 15, since the witness has not tested the said caterpillar, he need not answer that question.
[9] Question 54 is a question of law and need not be answered.
[10] In regard to questions 82, 83 and 84, the present state of the defence does not authorize these questions.
Motion by Camoplast in file T-2006-99
[11] In regard to questions 968 and 970, Soucy's counsel provided some partial answers in his written representations. This will suffice for the moment, since these questions are fundamentally questions of law.
[12] Question 1095 shall be answered. It is intended to identify the prior art on which Soucy hopes to rely.
Motion by Soucy in file T-2007-99
[13] Question 45 is fundamentally seeking an interpretation of the patent. It need not be answered.
[14] Questions 252 and 253 are irrelevant. More particularly, Camoplast need not inquire into the duty addressed by question 253.
[15] Question 268 will be answered in view of some new photos.
Motion by Camoplast in file T-2007-99
[16] In regard to question 35, it shall be answered, since Camoplast is entitled to know whether there is a close relationship between Gilles Soucy Inc. and the defendants, in order to determine whether a representative of the defendants would have some personal knowledge of the document cited as prior art.
[17] Questions 414 and 427 should be answered for the reasons expressed in Court.
[18] In regard to questions 859 and 860, the witness shall answer in light of his personal knowledge.
[19] In regard to the costs on these four motions, they go to Camoplast but in the form of a set of costs for the total of four motions.
[20] Within ten (10) days of this order, the parties will have to agree on and submit jointly a timetable covering the points discussed in Court and the remaining steps to be taken in this case.
[21] These reasons and this order are applicable mutatis mutandis in file T-2007-99 and a copy thereof will be placed in that file.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: T-2006-99
STYLE: CAMOPLAST INC.
Plaintiff/
Defendant by counterclaim
AND
SOUCY INTERNATIONAL INC.
Defendant/
Plaintiff by counterclaim
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 6, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER OF RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: November 8, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Jean Carrière for the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim
Éric Ouimet for the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mendelsohn Rosentzveig Schacter for the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim
Montréal, Quebec
Brouillette Charpentier Fortin for the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim
Montréal, Quebec
Federal Court of Canada
Trial Division
Date: 20001108
Docket: T-2006-99
Between:
CAMOPLAST INC.
Plaintiff/
Defendant by counterclaim
AND
SOUCY INTERNATIONAL INC.
Defendant/
Plaintiff by counterclaim
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
Email this Content