An interesting conflict: Canadian Federal Court of Appeal refuses to see conflict of interest in patent case

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.cainfo@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-VictoriaBlocE-8thFloorMontreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874
QUEBECLeDeltaBuilding2875LaurierBoulevard,Delta3–suite700Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V2M2Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
ANINTERESTINGCONFLICT:CANADIANFEDERALCOURTOFAPPEAL
REFUSESTOSEECONFLICTOFINTERESTINPATENTCASE

JASONMOSCOVICI*
ROBIC,LLP
LAWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

OnFebruary17th,2017,theFederalCourtofAppealrefusedanappealfromappellants
C.StevenSikes,Aquero,LLcandAquial,LLC(“Sikes”),whowereseekingtheremoval
ofthesolicitorsforRespondentsEncanaCorporation,CenovusFCCLLTD.,FCCL
PartnershipandCenovusEnergyInc.(“Encana”),duetoanallegedconflictofinterest.
CounselforEncanahadpreviously“satdown”withSikestodiscussthepatent
infringementmatterthatwasatissue,priortoanactionbeingtaken.Thiscaseserves
asaninterestingstudyofthesolicitor-clientrelationshipinpatentcases,andhowthe
courtsevaluatethepotentialforaconflictofinterest.[Sikev.EncanaCorporation,2017
FCA37].

FACTS

InJune2008,Sikeswasseekingtoretaincounseltodiscussthepatentrightsitwas
lookingtoassert.Morespecifically,Sikescontactedeightdifferentlawfirmstodiscuss
infringementissuesarisingfromtheissuanceofapendingpatentinCanada.Mr.
Garland,aprofessionalworkingforthefirmthatisactingasCounselforEncana,was
amongstthoseconsulted.

SikesandMr.Garlandspent15minutesdiscussing“aCanadianpatentpendinganda
possibleinfringementsituationpertainingtowaterclarificationchemicalsandprocesses
intheoil-sandsregion”.MrGarlandtookinformationfromSikesandopenedageneral
fileentitled“AqueroCompany”,asperhisfirmsinternalconflictcheckprocess.During
thischeck,therewereongoingexchangesbetweenMr.GarlandandSikes,upuntil
Sikeswasinformed,attheendofJune2008,thatMr.Garlandcouldnottakethefile
duetoaconflictofinterest.Hethenprovidedrecommendationsastootherlawfirms
thatcouldbecontacted.

©CIPS,2017.*OfROBIC,LLP,afirmoflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.Publishedat(2017),31:4World
IntellectualPropertyReport.Publication064.318.

2

Yearslater,in2014,Mr.Garland’sfirmwasappointedassolicitorsforEncanainthe
underlyinginfringementactionagainstSikesthatwasalreadyongoing.Morethana
yearafterthat,SikesmovedtohaveMr.Garland’sfirmremovedfromthefilebasedon
SikespriormeetingwithMr.Garlandin2008.

Conflictedviews

Sikesallegedthatduringtheirfirstmeeting,confidentialinformationwasprovidedtoMr.
GarlandandthatMr.GarlandhadalsogivenlegaladvicetoSikesregardingthe
infringementmatterathand.

TheinitialmotionwaspresentedbeforetheProthonotarywhowaspresidingasCase
ManagementJudgeforthefile.Itwasdismissed.TheProthonotaryheldthatMr.
Garland’sevidence,whichwasunchallenged,establishedthattheinformationthatwas
communicatedbySikeswasgeneral,notconfidential,andthatnolegaladvicehad
beenprovided.TheProthonotaryfoundthatwhiletheconversationbetweenSikesand
Mr.Garlandwasheldoversevenyearsago,Mr.Garland’snoteshelpedcorroboratehis
evidenceandaffirmthathedidnotstrayfromhisfirm’sconflictofinterestreview
procedure.

AnappealwasfiledbySikesbeforetheFederalCourtofCanada,whichwasdismissed.
InreferringtotheProthonotary’sconclusions,theFederalCourtfoundthattherewasno
basissupportingtheallegationthatasolicitor-clientrelationshipexisted.Itisinteresting
tonotethehighlevelofdeferencethatwasgivenbytheFederalCourttothe
Prothonotaryinitsdecision.TheProthonotarywasactingastheCasemanagement
judgefortheunderlyinginfringementactionandtherefore,hadamasteryoftheissues
andfactsatbar.Therefore,theFederalCourtfoundthattheProthonotary’sdecision
wasdiscretionaryandfactual.Itsawnoneedtointervene.

TheFederalCourtofAppeal

SikesappealedtheFederalCourt`sdecision.OnAppeal,theCourtremindsusthat
discretionarydecisionsrenderedbyProthonotariesareindeedreviewable,ifthe
Prothonotaryerredinlawormadeapalpableandoverridingerror.

TwogroundswereadvancedbytheProthonotarytodismissthemotion:one,thatSikes
failedindemonstratingthataclient-solicitorrelationshipexistedandtwo,thattherewas
noriskthattheuseofanyconfidentialinformationwouldprejudiceSikes.

SikesallegedthattheProthonotarymisunderstoodthetestthatneededtobeapplied.
AccordingtoSikes,thefollowingquestionsneededtobeansweredinorderto
determineifthereisaconflictofinterestornot:1)Didthelawyerreceiverelevant
confidentialinformationthatisattributabletoasolicitorclientrelationshipand2)isthere
ariskthatuseofthisinformationwillprejudicetheclient?

3

Morespecifically,Sikesmaingroundforappealwasthat,undertherelevantcaselaw,
theinformationthatwasgiventoMr.Garlandispresumedconfidentialandthatthe
Prothonotarydidnotgiveanyeffecttothispresumption.TheFederalCourtofAppeal
acceptedthatinformationwasexchangedaspartofanexploratoryandeventual
solicitor-clientrelationshipandthatthepresumptionofconfidentialitycouldtherefore
extendtothisinformation.TheFederalCourtofAppealthereforeagreedthatan
argumentcouldbemadethatwithregardstothetwoquestionsadvancedbySikes
above,thattheycouldapplyevenwheninasituationwhereasolicitor-client
relationshipwasnotcreated.

Nevertheless,theFederalCourtofAppealfoundthattheProthonotary,initsdecision,
usedlanguagesuggestingthathedidinfactconsiderthispresumption(“Ifindthatthe
[appellants]havefailedtodischargetheirburden”)butthatinanyevent,the
Prothonotary`sdecisiondidnot“hingeonwhohadtheburdenorwhobenefitedfromthe
presumption”.

Furthermore,theProthonotary’sdecisionwasalsobasedonhisappreciationofthe
contradictoryevidencethatwasplacedbeforehim.Ononehand,therewasclearand
unchallengedevidenceprovidedbyMr.Garland:Mr.Garland’swrittennotes
corroboratedhisposition,thatnolegaladvicewasgiven,andthattheinformation
conveyedwasgeneralandnotconfidential.Ontheother,Sikesproducedevidence
stemmingfromaffidavits.Inlightofthecrossexaminationsthatensued,misstatements
andembellishmentsbySikeswerebroughttolightdespitethefactthatMr.Garlandwas
unabletorecallthedetailoftheoverseven-year-oldconversation.

TheFederalCourtofAppealagreedthatifconfidentialinformation“comestothe
knowledgeofmembersofalegalfirmtargetedbyamotiontodisqualify,itbecomes
almostimpossibletoshowthatsuchinformationwillnotbeusedinaprejudicial
fashion”.However,theitalsore-establishedthattheremaybecaseswhere“no
informationwasimpartedwhichcouldberelevant”totheunderlyingdispute.Thisis
whattheProthonotaryfoundinitsdecisionandtheFederalCourtofAppealfoundno
reasontointervene.Inotherwords,simplybecausecounselwasconsultedforapatent
matter,priortoaconflictcheck,doesnotautomaticallyprecludethemfromactingfor
theotherpartyinaninfringementmatter.Thereisnoautomaticpresumptionofa
conflictofinterest.

Conclusion

Thiscaseisagoodreminderoftherolesandresponsibilitiesthatareentrustedto
intellectualpropertyprofessionalstheminuteaprospectiveclientstepsthroughthe
door.Discussionsregardingtheambitofaclient’sintellectualpropertyportfolioisnot
sufficienttodeterminewhetherasolicitor-clientrelationshipexists,evenifnoclientfile
isopenedornoretainerispaid.Furthermore,thedisclosureofinformationnecessary
foralawyertoconductandcompleteaconflictcheckdoesnotautomaticallycreatethis

4

solicitorclientrelationship,eveniftheinformationthatwasdiscussedcouldbe
presumedconfidential.Lastly,eveniftheinformationisinfactconfidential,onecannot
alwayspresumethatthisinformationcanautomaticallybeusedagainstaprospective
clientifnomandateisgranted.

WhileitwasclearinthiscasethatSikesmetwithMr.Garlandtodiscusspossible
patentinfringement,theCourtfoundthatameremeetingisnotsufficienttodisqualify
counselfromrepresentinganopposingpartytothiscase.TheCourtalsoremindsus
thatwhileapresumptionofconfidentialitycouldapplytoanyinformationgivenduring
suchameeting,whetherasolicitor-clientprivilegeexistsornot,itistherelevancyofthis
informationtothematterathandthatcouldhelptipthescale.

InIPmatters,counselisoftenprivytomanyaspectsofapotentialclient`sbusiness.Itis
thereforeprudenttokeepquestioninggeneralandtonotgiveanyadviceofalegal
natureuntilaconflictcheckhascleared.Thisshouldnotautomaticallyprecludecounsel
fromrefusingthefileandrepresentinganotherpartyconcernedwiththesamematter.
Furthermore,thisservesasaclearexampleoftheimportanceoftakinggoodnotes
beforeandaftermeetingswithpotentialclients!

5

Pourdesservicesdeconseilsdansledomainedelapropriété
intellectuelleetdestechnologiesdel’informationetdescommunications
(incluantlesservicesd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce)
demêmequedesservicesjuridiques.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriété
intellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèles
utilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
d’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetde
l’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéet
étiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,
agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892to
theprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;
biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-
how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnology
transfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityand
labelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.®/MD

COPYRIGHTERTM/MC

IDEASLIVEHERE®/MD

ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!®/MD

LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES®/MD

LEGERROBICRICHARD®/MD

NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES®/MD

PATENTER®/MD

ou«R»®/MDstylisé

ROBIC®/MD

6

OustyliséROBIC++++®/MDstylisé

ouROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS®/MDstylisé

ouROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART®/MDstylisé

THETRADEMARKERGROUPTM/MC

TRADEMARKERTM/MC

VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE®/MD

YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD®/MD

MarquesdecommercedeROBIC,S.E.N.C.R.L.poursesservicesde
conseilsdansledomainedelapropriétéintellectuelleetdes
technologiesdel’informationetdescommunications(incluantles
servicesd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce)demême
quesesservicesjuridiques

*************************************************************************************************
*

Forservicespertainingtointellectualproperty,technologyand
communicationlawandrelatedmatters(includingpatentandtrade-mark
agencyservices)aswellaslegalservices.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriété
intellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèles
utilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
d’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetde
l’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéet
étiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,

7

agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892to
theprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;
biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-
how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnology
transfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityand
labelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.®/MD

COPYRIGHTERTM/MC

IDEASLIVEHERE®/MD

ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!®/MD

LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES®/MD

LEGERROBICRICHARD®/MD

NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES®/MD

PATENTER®/MD

orstylizedR®/MD

ROBIC®/MD

orstylizedROBIC++++®/MD

orstylizedROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS®/MD

orstylizedROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART®/MD

THETRADEMARKERGROUPTM/MC

TRADEMARKERTM/MC

VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE®/MD

8

YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD®/MD

Trade-marksofROBIC,LLPforitsservicespertainingtointellectual
property,technologyandcommunicationlawandrelatedmatters
(includingpatentandtrade-markagencyservices)aswellaslegal
services