Rovi Guides, Inc. v. BCE Inc., 2022 FC 979
Justice Brown - 2022-06-30
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
Regarding the striking of Mediakind as defendants, the Defendants submit the SOC contains no material facts concerning the conduct of Mediakind that allegedly amounts to infringement. They submit that because the Mediakind defendants do not provide television services in Canada they cannot infringe the asserted claims directly, by inducement, agency, common design or otherwise. However, and importantly, at paragraph 51 of the SOC, Rovi pleads as a material fact that on January 18, 2018, the Defendant Bell made an announcement that Bell would offer “enhanced, personalized and converged multiscreen TV experience” arising from its relationship with various of the Mediakind entities. This pleading must be accepted as true, and there is no suggestion otherwise. The content of the agreement between Bell and Mediakind has not been disclosed by the Defendants. It is common ground Rovi has no knowledge of its provisions. Rovi pleads as much which again must be and is accepted as true. Rovi concedes it does not know the precise roles each of the Mediakind entities play in the various TV platforms in issue but asserts such information is within the knowledge of the Defendants. ... Bell Mediakind have failed to establish the CMJ made any error or palpable and overriding error in dismissing the motion to strike for lack of material facts, or in dismissing their request to remove Mediakind from the SOC, or in relation to the pleadings of common design and agency.
Decision relates to:
- T-1184-21 - ROVI GUIDES, INC. v. BCE INC. et Al.