![]() ![]() The Mediatube decision is unique, however, as it is the first of its kind in Canada: a trial decision on a patent in the information technology field, asserted by what some-primarily, Bell-might consider a patent troll, a party that attempts to directly profit from the assertion of patent rights, even though it does not compete in the relevant market and may be asserting the patent well beyond its valid scope. The “stand-by utility” infringement argument was also dismissed, as the modification had to be made for Bell to improperly benefit from the invention, and there was no evidence Bell intended to make the modification.Īs with most patent infringement cases, these conclusions turned on the construction of the patent claims and, as usual, construction followed long-established legal principles based on the leading Supreme Court decision, Free World Trust v. Not only was there was no current infringement, but the suggested modification would not result in an infringing system. Based on this and witness testimony, at trial the plaintiffs dropped all allegations of infringement save for a “stand-by utility” argument-that one aspect of Fibe TV infringed because it could be modified to infringe the patent claims by removing certain components.Īfter a considered analysis, Justice Locke held that the asserted patent claims were valid but not infringed four essential elements of the patent claims were missing from the Bell systems. Nine months before trial, after obtaining a better understanding of the plaintiffs’ theory of infringement, Bell produced corrected discovery information to the plaintiffs in the months leading up to trial. and licensee Mediatube Corp., initially alleged that Northvu’s patent on a system for redistributing audio/video signals to users over existing telephone wires was infringed by Bell’s IPTV services Bell defended and counterclaimed on the basis of invalidity. As disappointing as the outcome was for the plaintiffs, this decision on a 1990s patent and Bell’s Fibe TV internet protocol television (IPTV) service is illuminating for both ambitious patentees, and defendants facing down what some might call “patent trolls”. ![]() Bell Canada, 2017 FC 6 was a case that started with a bang-a claim for more than $350 million in damages for patent infringement-and ended “a damp squib”, in the words of the trial judge. The trial itself is not expected before late 2016.Mediatube Corp. Reached Monday, a BCE spokesperson said: “We have no comment on the case at this point but should explain that only preliminary matters will be discussed next week. In early 2004, Bell Canada had confidential discussions with Northvu “for the purpose of allowing Bell Canada to assess Northvu’s new IPTV technology and its intellectual property protection.” In August 2004 PureNet and Bell Canada “began to work together to commercialize PureNet’s IPTV service using Bell Canada’s infrastructure and telephone lines.” In late 2005 the two “entered into a written confidentiality agreement,” while in early 2006 the two “worked together” at Bell’s Toronto office. Jeffrey worked with Pure.Net TV (later MediaTube) “to commercialize an IPTV service based on the invention.” Later, according to the statement of claim, Northvu acquired the technology and the patent application. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |