PATENTS
Practice
Appeal by way of motion from Prothonotary’s order granting, but not entirely in terms sought by plaintiffs, protective order in respect of documents to be furnished during course of discovery in patent infringement action— Federal Courts Rules not providing for protective orders—But such orders granted in United States, where often parallel litigation—Terms in Canadian litigation mirror United States order and often granted on consent—Court providing view as to appropriate form of order when parties disagree as to terms—Issue here not whether order should be granted, but what its terms should be—Court reluctant, save in unusual circumstances, to issue protective order with “highly” confi-dential, “counsel’s eyes only” provisions— Prothonotary’s conclusion no such unusual circumstances here not warranting Court’s intervention—Open for Prothonotary to redraft draft order presented by plaintiffs, make terms bilateral—Motion dismissed—Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98‑106, r. 1 (as am. by SOR/2004‑283, s. 2).
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Brantford Chemicals Inc. (T‑1780‑03, 2005 FC 1360, Hughes J., order dated 4/10/05, 9 pp.)