![]() If Media Tube succeeded, it could recover from Bereskin (or its insurers) any amounts awarded against Media Tube in the Federal Court action and/or seek to have the Federal Court judgment set aside. He went on to say that Media Tube still had the option of suing Bereskin “for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or both in the provincial superior court” where full discovery would be available. In answer to Media Tube’s complaint that it needed to discover Bereskin in order to get all of the details, the judge observed (not surprisingly) that there is no provision for discovery before an appellate court. Justice Stratas was not satisfied that trial counsel knew of this work or that it would have been enough to constitute an actual conflict. Here, Bereskin had filed trademark applications for Microsoft. Bell Canadabegan as a high stakes patent case, with a claim for more than 350 million in damages for infringement of Mediatube’s Internet Protocol Television technology patent. Media Tube needed to show:(1) the existence of an actual (not “apparent”) conflict and (2) and that the conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance at trial – it is not necessary to show that the outcome would have been different. Ineffective assistance of counsel is sometimes used in a criminal context – it is exceptionally rare to be found in civil cases. The Court of Appeal (Justice Stratas), on June 26, 2018, dismissed Media Tube’s motion. Media Tube also sought discovery of Bereskin & Parr in order to ascertain the full extent of the conflict. This apparent conflict caused Bereskin to “pull its punches” in its representation of Media Tube in order to avoid harming the business interests of Microsoft and advance those of Bereskin (keeping Microsoft happy as a client). According to Media Tube, Bereskin was concurrently acting for Microsoft whose software was used in the allegedly infringing system used by Bell. On its appeal, Media Tube (now represented by Aitken Klee) tried to amend its notice of appeal to add “ineffective assistance by trial counsel” as a ground of appeal. ![]() Media Tube lost at trial (decision dated January 4, 2017) and appealed. Bell Canada – Federal Court of Appeal – A company called Media Tube sued Bell Canada for patent infringement with respect to technology pertaining to Bell Fibe TV. The trial itself is not expected before late 2016.Mediatube Corp. Reached Monday, a BCE spokesperson said: “We have no comment on the case at this point but should explain that only preliminary matters will be discussed next week. In early 2004, Bell Canada had confidential discussions with Northvu “for the purpose of allowing Bell Canada to assess Northvu’s new IPTV technology and its intellectual property protection.” In August 2004 PureNet and Bell Canada “began to work together to commercialize PureNet’s IPTV service using Bell Canada’s infrastructure and telephone lines.” In late 2005 the two “entered into a written confidentiality agreement,” while in early 2006 the two “worked together” at Bell’s Toronto office. Jeffrey worked with Pure.Net TV (later MediaTube) “to commercialize an IPTV service based on the invention.” Later, according to the statement of claim, Northvu acquired the technology and the patent application. 14845 Yonge St, Aurora, Ontario, L4G 6H8, Canada. ![]() The company is headquartered in Aurora, Ontario, Canada. ![]() It employs 6-10 people and has 1M-5M of revenue. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Mediatube Corp is a company that operates in the Media and Entertainment industry.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |