As reported previously, the Federal Court issued an interlocutory injunction on June 1, 2016 directed at retailers of set-top boxes that are configured, or “pre-loaded”, with various applications that provide their users with unauthorized access to copyrighted television content. This was found to amount to irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs, which are Canadian broadcasters and broadcast distribution undertakings that own and retransmit television programming in Canada. The Federal Court Order also provided for a mechanism allowing the Plaintiffs to expand the scope of the interlocutory injunction by impleading additional Defendants that sell such “pre-loaded” set-top boxes. Since the interlocutory injunction was issued, the Plaintiffs have added 83 new defendants to the proceedings.
One of the five (5) original Defendants, Mr. Vincent Wesley doing business as MTLFreeTV.com, appealed from the interlocutory injunction to the Federal Court of Appeal, arguing that the motion judge erred in finding that the Plaintiffs had demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted. The appeal was heard on March 20, 2017 by a panel of three judges of the Federal Court of Appeal and was dismissed from the bench, with costs.
Madam Justice Gauthier, speaking for the Federal Court of Appeal, noted that it was open to the motion judge to conclude as she did, in view of the uncontradicted evidence that was presented by the Plaintiffs. In particular, the Court held that it was open to the motion judge to infer that purchasers of “pre-loaded” set-top boxes have an incentive to permanently cancel their subscription with the Plaintiffs given that these set-top boxes are specifically advertised by the Defendants as means to “cut the cord”.
The Plaintiffs (Respondents on appeal) were successfully represented by François Guay, Guillaume Lavoie Ste-Marie and Jean-Sébastien Dupont of Smart & Biggar’s Montreal office.
For further information regarding this case or litigation in the Canadian Federal or Provincial Courts, please contact a member of our firm’s Litigation Group.
The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.
Related Publications & Articles
-
When patents expire but royalty payments don’t: contrasting U.S. and Canadian approaches to patent licensing
How does the expiration of the patents in one jurisdiction impact global royalty payments? This question was addressed by the United States Court of Appeal’s Ninth Circuit in C.R. Bard Inc v Atrium Me...Read More -
Accelerating Canadian Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR) applications with foreign Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) test results
In Canada, Plant Breeders’ Rights provide breeders exclusive rights for up to 25 years for tree and vine varieties and 20 years for all other plant varieties, ensuring breeders can benefit from their ...Read More -
Canadian Intellectual Property Office “Next Generation Patents” update and status as of April 10, 2025
On July 17, 2024, CIPO launched a new electronic system and portal, MyCIPO Patents, as part of its Next Generation Patents initiative. The launch has been fraught with difficulties, creating delays, e...Read More