related to methods of managing online advertising (Court File No.
act for Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC in a patent infringement suit against Google Canada Corporation, Google LLC and Alphabet Inc.
Mediatube vs bell software#
Our team has a broad range of experience in successfully enforcing and defending our clients in intellectual property disputes and litigation in the constantly evolving IT, Software and Communications sectors. Which can be expressed in terms of a public interest in confidentiality”. In question cannot merely be specific to the party requesting the order the interest must be one Granted when it is necessary “to prevent a serious risk to an important interest, including aĬommercial interest.” The SCC elaborated by saying “In order to qualify as an ‘important commercial interest’, the interest Sierra Club of Canada 2002 SCC 41, the SCC held that a confidentiality order should only be The decision also raised a significant point on the substantive law related to confidentiality. This step when it has no practical effect would impede the efficient conduct of trial. I were to give weight now to Bell’s failure to request that the courtroom be formallyĬlosed during discussion of confidential information during trial. As with the issue of Bell’s failure to request a formal Confidentiality Order, I amĬoncerned about potential negative effects on the efficient conduct of trials in the future if After noting that it was unlikely that any member of the public had actually had access to the confidential evidence, Locke J rejected this argument as well, for similar reasons of judicial economy: MediaTube also relied on the fact that the court had not been formally closed when the confidential
Mediatube vs bell trial#
This is not to say that a formal order is never advisable, but only that the need for a formal orderĪt trial should be left to the trial judge. Issuance of the order sought by MediaTube, and the consequent loss of confidentiality ofīell’s information, would likely prompt future litigants with information that all partiesĪgree is confidential to devote unnecessary resources to obtain formal Confidentiality In addition, I am concerned about potential negative effects on the efficientĬonduct of trials in the future if I were to give weight now to Bell’s failure to make aįormal motion, supported by formal evidence, for a formal Confidentiality Order. Rulings on confidentiality, and does not impede the application of the principle of res
The fact that no formal Confidentiality Order was issued does not render null my Thus the issue of confidentiality had been duly raised, considered and decided at trial ,Īnd Locke J held that the matter was therefore res judicata notwithstanding the absence of a formal order The trial, asking that certain material be treated as confidential, and Locke J had agreed, , Order had ever been granted, but Bell had raised the issue of confidentiality several times during No formal evidence was submitted on the issue of confidentiality and no formal Confidentiality Hearing of the appeal would not be scheduled until after a decision on this motion.
(The Court of Appeal has indicated that the That they be made available to the public. Motion seeking a declaration that these exhibits and transcripts are part of the public domain, and Object after retaining new counsel, and just after the trial decision was issued, MediaTube filed a MediaTube did not object at that time, but it did That it felt should be treated as confidential. (And see 2017 FC 495ĭiscussed here further clarifying the costs order.)ĭuring the trial, in an exchange with the Court, Bell identified certain exhibits and transcripts As discussed here, MediaTube's infringement action against Bell fell apart duringĭiscovery, and Locke J’s decision on the meritslargely addressed costs: 2017 FC 6. This decision raises a couple of interesting points regarding procedure and substantive law ofĬonfidentiality orders. Bell Canada 2018 FC 355 Locke JĢ,339,447 / Internet Protocol Televsion / Fibe TV, FibreOp
0 kommentar(er)
