Adeia Guides Inc. v. Videotron Ltd., 2025 FC 1725
Justice Gagné - 2025-11-14
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
The Court is seized with what could be identified as the second round of litigation between these parties [see 2022 FC 874 and 2024 FCA 125]. … Before the decision was issued in Rovi FC, Adeia brought the within action against Videotron, alleging infringement of four different patents (same portfolio license) owned by Adeia. … I find that had the 922 Asserted Claims been valid, they have not been infringed by the iVOD “Restart” feature on Helix TV. … For the above reasons, I am of the view that the 571 Asserted Claims are invalid for anticipation. I am also of the view that had the 571 Asserted Claims been valid, they would not have been infringed by the Videotron services. … I [] find that Videotron infringed both the 187 Patent and the 674 Patent through their contractual agreement with Comcast. In this case, the specific common design, was to launch Videotron’s Helix TV offerings with the “Resume Viewing” function, through sub-contracting part of their patent infringement to Comcast. … Videotron will not be found liable for the infringement of the 187 Patent by the VRAI “Resume Viewing” menu. … Adeia seeks purported ‘lost profits’ due to a ‘lost’ patent portfolio licence with Videotron. This effectively treats the four patents in suit as being a proxy for over 200 unasserted patents and applications for which validity and infringement (or usefulness for Videotron) have not been determined. … I am of the view that the evidence supports a conclusion that the appropriate royalty for the 187 and 674 Patents, is as calculated by [Videotron’s expert], namely a scaled rate based on the Adeia’s January 2017 proposition … Adeia has not convinced me that the proper remedy for Videotron’s infringement of the 187 and 674 Patents is the total royalty that would have been paid to Adeia, had the parties renewed the licence for the entire Adeia patents portfolio. In my view, Videotron’s expert has provided the Court with the proper formula for the assessment of damages for the infringement of two patents out of more than 200. (DLA Piper including Bruce Stratton, Michal Kasprowicz, David Lafontaine and me represented Videotron in this proceeding)
Decision relates to:
- T-841-21 - ROVI GUIDES, INC. v. VIDEOTRON LTD.
- A-393-25 - which is an appeal from this decision
- T-841-21 - ROVI GUIDES, INC. v. VIDEOTRON LTD.
- A-394-25 - which is an appeal from this decision
- T-841-21 - ROVI GUIDES, INC. v. VIDEOTRON LTD.
- A-395-25 - which is an appeal from this decision