Airbus Helicopters v. Bell Helicopters Textron Canada Limitee, 2016 FC 590

Justice Martineau - 2016-05-27

Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:

The defendant, Bell Helicopter, sought directions that it may rely upon their four expert reports for the quantification trial (see liability reasons at 2012 FC 113 aff'd 2013 FCA 219) that will consider reasonable royalty and punitive damages, or in the alternative, leave to rely on such reports. Airbus, which intends to rely on a single expert opposes on the basis that the total number of experts relied on by Bell in both the liability and damages phases will exceed the five witness maximum stipulated in the Canada Evidence Act. The court counted an expert, who's report was served but was not called at the liability stage towards the five but granted leave for one further expert above the five, allowing Bell to call two of its proposed four experts. The court considered both the liability and quantification phases as a single proceeding for the purposes of the Act.


Canadian Intellectual Property