COURT FILE NOS.: CV-21-00657624-0000; and CV-21-00656338-0000
DATE: 20210415
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Q3 NETWORKING LLC
Applicant
– and –
SIEMENS CANADA LIMITED
Respondent
AND BETWEEN
COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. COMMSCOPE, INC., ARRIS US HOLDINGS, INC., RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC and NETGEAR, INC.
Applicants
- And –
SIEMENS CANADA LIMITED
Respondent
Eric Brousseau and Nicole Daniel, lawyers for the applicant
Ryan T. Evans, lawyer for respondent
Brendan van Niejenhuis and Karen Bernofsky, lawyers for the applicants
Ryan T. Evans, lawyer for respondent
HEARD: April 14, 2021
ENDORSEMENT
DIAMOND J.:
Overview
[1] On April 14, 2021, I heard two urgent and related applications which both seek orders recognizing and enforcing two letters rogatory issued on January 26, 2021 and March 4, 2021 respectively by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“D.C.”).
[2] At the conclusion of the hearing of both applications, I took my decision under reserve.
Cast of Characters
[3] The applicant Q3 Networking LLC (“Q3”) is a limited liability company located in Texas. On or about May 7, 2020, Q3 purchased four separate U.S. patents from a company known as IP Edge LLC (“IP”). IP had previously purchased those four patents in late October 2018 from Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (“Siemens AG”).
[4] Siemens AG is the parent company of both the respondent Siemens Canada Limited and Siemens Industry Inc. (“SI”, carrying on business in the United States). Pursuant to a licensing agreement with Q3, Siemens (comprising Siemens AG, SI and the respondent) is licensed to use all of the four patents in the United States as Q3’s third party licensee.
[5] Siemens AG designs, develops and commercializes various products that incorporate technology protected by the four patents. Those products include various routers sold under the brand name Ruggedcom. The Ruggedcom products are distributed globally by numerous Siemens affiliates, including SI and the respondent.
[6] Technology employing the four patents has also been incorporated by other makers of routers and related devices, including products manufactured and sold by Commscope Holding Company, Inc., Commscope Inc., Arris US Holding, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Aruba Networks, LLC and Netgear, Inc. The companies (collectively “Commscope”) are all applicants in the accompanying application.
The underlying D.C. Litigation
[7] Q3 has advanced the position that Commscope is unlawfully importing and selling various products that infringe upon the four patents owned by Q3. In furtherance of its position, Q3 has commenced two pieces of litigation:
a) a complaint in an administrative law proceeding against Commscope before the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”); and,
b) a civil proceeding in the U.S. District Court for DC against Commscope seeking, inter alia, an order enjoining Commscope from importing and selling various products alleged to have infringed upon the four Q3 owned patents.
[8] ITC is an independent agency of the United States Congress and a quasi-judicial body that enforces the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
[9] The ITC proceeding was issued on October 28, 2020. Q3’s civil proceeding was commenced in early 2021.
[10] Commscope has denied the allegations made against them in both proceedings, and has also asserted affirmative defences including the lack of a U.S. domestic industry that exploits the four patents.
[11] All parties seem to agree that in order to be successful in the ITC proceeding and/or the civil proceeding, Q3 must satisfy a doctrine known as the “domestic industry requirement”. This doctrine requires Q3 to show that it is making products available to the U.S. market which fall within the scope of the four patents at issue. Q3 must also demonstrate that it has made sufficient economic investments in the U.S. related to products which use the four patents.
[12] According to Commscope, qualifying investments must fall within one or more of three categories:
a) significant investments in plant and equipment;
b) significant employment of labour or capital; or,
c) substantial investments in the exploitation of the asserted patents, including engineering, research and development, or licensing.
[13] As Q3 has licensed the four patents to a third party (Siemens AG), Q3 may rely upon the qualifying economic investments of Siemens to satisfy the domestic industry standard. This is what Q3 is seeking to do in the underlying U.S. litigation.
[14] In seeking to rely upon SI to satisfy the domestic industry requirement, Q3 served SI with a subpoena seeking documents and testimony regarding SI’s qualifying economic investments in the U.S. It is the applicants’ joint position that since Q3 must show that SI’s qualifying economic investments are “quantitatively significant”, such an analysis requires a comparison between two sources. Since the respondent performs activities outside of the U.S. related to one or more of the four patents, the respondent’s Canada-based activities are relevant to the issue of whether SI’s investments in the US are significant enough for Q3 to satisfy the domestic industry requirement.
[15] In response to Q3’s assertion that a sufficient “domestic industry” exists, Commscope has taken the position that SI’s investment in the U.S. is not sufficiently significant when compared to the investments made to economies outside the U.S. by Siemens AG’s affiliates and sister companies, including the respondent.
The Two Letters Rogatory
[16] Within the ITC proceeding, Commscope brought a motion asking that the ITC recommend to the D.C. Court that letters rogatory be issued to compel documentary and oral evidence from the respondent. Q3 did not oppose Commscope’s motion.
[17] Q3’s motion was initially denied on the ground that the requested information was “not narrow in scope.” Q3 then re-filed its motion on January 26, 2021 with amendments to the scope of the requested information and documentation. That motion was successful, and the ITC administrative judge issued the recommendation order on February 11, 2021.
[18] When the recommendation order was submitted to the D.C. District Court, the formal letters rogatory were issued on March 4, 2021.
[19] According to the respondent, the letters rogatory were issued in substantially the same form as the proposed draft prepared by Q3 in its re-filed motion. The letters rogatory seek oral and documentary discovery from the respondent regarding its economic investments in the design, research and development, engineering, testing, manufacture, sale, technical support and repair, all relating to the respondent’s practice that used the four patents (i.e. the Ruggedcom routers).
[20] Commscope submits that this requested oral and documentary evidence will help establish certain facts critical to its defence in the ITC proceeding, including the nature of those activities, the location of the activities, how many employees are engaged in the activities and the amount of economic investment made by the respondent in support of those activities.
[21] On December 23, 2020, Commscope filed its own motion in the ITC proceeding to obtain a recommendation order that the D.C. District Court issue letters rogatory to compel similar oral and documentary discovery of the respondent. The recommendation order was issued on January 15, 2021, and the D.C. District Court issued the formal letters rogatory order on January 26, 2021.
[22] It is to be noted that Q3 had previously sought much (if not all) of the information set out in the letters rogatory from Siemens AG and SI through previous subpoenas issued in the ITC proceeding. SI provided all the evidence in its possession, but advised Q3 that SI did not have access to technical information pertaining to the Ruggedcom products as those records are produced and maintained by the respondent.
[23] As Siemens AG and SI do not have the requested evidence relating to the Ruggedcom products, the applicants are pursuing these applications to enforce the letters rogatory in Ontario. Specifically, the applicants are seeking information in the respondent’s possession relating to the Ruggedcom products, records of which are maintained in an SAP Enterprise Data Management System.
Q3’s Narrowing of the Scope of its Letters Rogatory
[24] Q3’s letters rogatory request 14 topics for productions of documents, many of which pertain to the source codes of Ruggedcom products. According to Q3, this broad request is “customary practice” for discovery in the U.S.
[25] Recently, Q3 has amended its position, and focused upon a request for a more narrow subset of source codes for Ruggedcom products. In fact, Q3 has now confirmed that the “source codes for the web user interface for changing parameters or settings on the Ruggedcom products” is the only information that Q3 seeks in its application.
The “Urgency”
[26] The letters rogatory set short deadlines for responses, both from this Court and/or the respondent. This is due to the fact that the ITC proceeding must be completed “at the earliest practicable time” under the Tariff Act of 1930. The discovery deadline in the ITC proceeding has been extended to April 21, 2021, with all evidence to be collected prior to that date under the current schedule. The ITC hearing is set to proceed from July 29 to August 3, 2021.
[27] The respondent has confirmed that it possesses the source codes sought under the letters rogatory. However, the respondent submits that it would take approximately 32 “man weeks” of labour to review and produce the subset of source codes to Q3. The respondent states that there is simply not enough time between now and April 21, 2021 to comply with the request.
The Respondent’s Position
[28] The respondent further submits that the source codes being sought from hundreds of Ruggedcom products are proprietary trade secrets, the divulgence of which could enable a competitor to replicate the respondent’s product lineup. The respondent points to the fact that many of the applicants in the Commscope application are in fact direct global competitors of the respondent.
[29] The respondent submits that disclosure of certain third parties software modules embedded within the Ruggedcom source codes would also cause the respondent to breach its contractual obligations to maintain those third party software modules in confidence.
[30] The applicants suggest that the source codes be made available to independent reviewers retained and paid by Q3 as a “go between” solution, and that what is being sought from the respondent is only information within the respondent’s possession related to Ruggedcom products.
The Statutory Test
[31] This Court’s authority to enforce letters rogatory is found in section 46(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1995 c. C5, and sections 60 of the Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990 C. E23. The requirements in each statute are essentially identical:
a) a foreign court, desirous of obtaining testimony in relation to a pending civil, commercial or criminal matter, as authorized the obtaining of evidence;
b) the party from whom the evidence is sought is within the jurisdiction of Ontario;
c) the evidence sought from the Ontario party is in relation to a pending proceeding before the foreign court or tribunal; and,
d) the foreign court or tribunal is a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
[32] There is no dispute, and the respondent agrees, that the requirements under both statutes have been satisfied on the record before this Court.
Additional Legal Principles
[33] All parties to these applications agree that the statutory requirements for enforcing letters rogatory have been supplemented by the related jurisprudence. Even if the statutory requirements are met, the Court nevertheless retains a discretion to grant or refuse enforcement of letters rogatory. In the recent decision of Actava TV, Inc. v. Matvil Corp. 2021 ONCA 105, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that there are three elements relevant to the enforcement of letters rogatory: comity, public policy of the jurisdiction to which the request is directed, and the absence of prejudice to the sovereignty of the citizens of that jurisdiction. The respondent summarizes this principle as follows:
“Canadian courts will generally give full force in effect to letters rogatory from a foreign jurisdiction out of mutual deference and respect (i.e. comity) unless to do so would be contrary to Canadian public policy or otherwise infringe upon the sovereignty of Canadian citizens.”
[34] As held by the Supreme Court of Canada in Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc. 2006 SCC 52 “comity is a balancing exercise…the relevant considerations are respect for a nation’s acts, international duty, convenience and protection of a nation’s citizens.”
[35] Comity is no doubt a flexible concept. As held in Actava, Canadian courts have refused to order testimony for use in foreign proceedings in various situations, including:
a) where a request for production of documents was vague in general;
b) where discovery was sought against a non-party to a litigation in violation of local laws of civil procedure; and,
c) where the main purpose of the examination was to serve as a “fishing expedition”, a procedure which is frowned upon and not permissible in Canadian courts.
[36] In Perlmutter v. Smith 2020 ONCA 570, the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed six factors which the Court must consider when deciding whether to enforce letters rogatory. While each of the six factors are not rigid pre-conditions, the Court should nevertheless consider all of the elements in its enforcement analysis. The six factors to be considered are:
• Is the evidence sought relevant?
• Is the evidence sought necessary for trial and will it be adduced at trial if admissible?
• Is the evidence sought not otherwise obtainable?
• Is the order sought contrary to public policy?
• Are the documents sought identified with reasonable specificity?
• Is the order sought not unduly burdensome, having in mind what the relevant witnesses would be required to do and produce if the action was tried here?
[37] In Acker Biomarine AS et al v. KGK Synergize Inc., 2013 ONSC 4897, the Court held that given the broader discovery rules that may exist in the United States, the Ontario court is “entitled and obliged to go behind the text and terms” of the letters rogatory, and should “give effect to the request only if the Ontario court is independently satisfied” that the requirements for enforcement are met based on the evidence filed.
Should the Letters Rogatory be Enforced?
[38] During the hearing of the applications, I asked counsel for the parties to address the grounds raised by the respondent in opposition to the relief sought. Most of those grounds overlap in both applications, although there are certain grounds which are germane to each application.
[39] I will now address the primary grounds raised by the respondent in turn.
a) Should the ITC and D.C. Court not be shown total deference?
[40] The respondent relies upon the following excerpt from the Biomarine decision:
“Although the Ontario court considering enforcement of the letters rogatory does not function as an appellate court in respect of the foreign “requesting court”, it is not bound to accept the language or stated conclusions of the letters rogatory as the “final say” on matters relating to their enforcement. To the contrary, the Ontario court must reach its own findings and conclusions based on the evidence filed. Observations and conclusions of the foreign court generally are entitled to deference and respect, especially if they are reached after a thorough review of the matter and full and contested argument. However, it is also possible that the court issuing the letters rogatory may have done so in a perfunctory manner, without consideration of the matters at issue and without testing the evidence relied on in support of the request. The Ontario court therefore is entitled and obliged to go behind the text and terms of the request to examine precisely what it is the foreign court is seeking to do, and give effect to the request only if the Ontario court is independently satisfied that the requirements of the law in this jurisdiction have been met.”
[41] The respondent argues that the letters rogatory did not follow any thorough review of the matters raised in the ITC proceeding. On the contrary, the requests for the letters rogatory were put forth on an unopposed basis, and essentially sought a “rubber stamp” from the ITC and the D.C. Court. As such, the respondent argues that as the letters rogatory were issued in a perfunctory manner, this Court is obliged to carry out a thorough examination of what the ITC and/or D.C. Court is seeking to do, and “give effect to the request only if independently satisfied that the requirements to the law in this jurisdiction have been met.”
[42] I disagree. There is evidence in the record that when Q3 filed a motion to the ITC in late December 2020 to obtain the recommendation order for the issuance of letters rogatory, that motion was in fact denied on the grounds that the requested information was “not narrow in scope”. Only after the scope of the letters rogatory was varied did the ITC administrative judge issue the recommendation order.
[43] In my view, those facts lead to the reasonable conclusion that the ITC and the D.C. Court did conduct a review of the matter even though the motion(s) did not proceed on a contested basis. I am not convinced that the letters rogatory were issued in a perfunctory manner. As previously stated, courts of one jurisdiction will enforce decisions of another jurisdiction out of mutual deference and respect unless such enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of the local jurisdiction. There is no basis to refuse to afford the ITC and D.C. Court that necessary deference in this case.
b) Are the letters rogatory orders effectively moot?
[44] As stated, the deadline for discovery in the ITC proceeding is April 21, 2021, which is one week from the hearing date of these applications. That hearing date was set by Justice Myers on March 17, 2021 in Civil Practice Court. At that time, the deadline for the completion of discovery had in fact expired (March 5, 2021), but the applicants jointly requested the ITC administrative judge to extend that deadline to April 21, 2021. As such, the respondent argues that to the extent that there is urgency to these applications, it was self-created by the applicants when they jointly chose a deadline for discovery merely one week after the hearing date for the applications.
[45] Further, according to the sworn evidence of Q3’s U.S. counsel), the April 21, 2021 discovery cut-off date requires all evidence to be gathered, and all examinations to be completed, by that deadline. As all parties agree that there is no possibility that the oral and documentary evidence sought under the letters rogatory can be completed by April 21, 2021 (and will likely take several months to complete), the respondent argues that enforcing the letters rogatory would be an exercise in mootness.
[46] The respondent relies upon the following additional excerpt from the Biomarine decision:
“The Ontario court should take into account any scheduling orders in place in the foreign litigation, (including reasonable possibilities of those orders being amended), to ensure that non-party witnesses resident in Ontario are not placed under unnecessary or undue burdens, having regard to deadlines and time constraints in the foreign litigation. In that regard, however, the court also may have regard to conduct which may have fostered such concerns.”
[47] The respondent submits that since the revised deadline was jointly chosen by the applicants, the evidence sought in the letters rogatory is effectively “unnecessary for trial” as it will never be amassed and completed in time.
[48] While there is no direct evidence (expert or otherwise) in the record to discuss or explain the reasonable possibility of the deadline being further extended, I do note that the deadline was already extended once (from March 5, 2021 to April 21, 2021) on consent of the applicants. As such, extensions are at least possible in the ITC proceeding. While I cannot speculate as to whether further extensions will be granted, I also cannot conclude that they are unavailable.
[49] The applicants rely upon the comments of Justice Brown (as he then was) in Oticon Inc. v. Jennum Corporation 2009 CanLII 72032 (ONSC):
“Sound Design submitted, as a preliminary matter, that Oticon’s request is moot because the Amended Pre-Trial Scheduling Order in the U.S. Proceeding set September 28, 2009, as the date for the completion of all discoveries relating to Claims Construction.
I give no effect to this submission. Oticon applied promptly for the enforcement of the Letters Rogatory. From what I can see much of the delay arose because of the steps taken by the respondents to oppose vigorously enforcement of the Letters Rogatory. Of course, they are entitled to do so, but a respondent cannot “run out the clock”, so to speak, and then ask the court to dismiss the application on the grounds of mootness. The U.S. District Court has not withdrawn its request to this court. Experience has shown that extensions to discovery timetables are often granted.”
[50] While the applicants may be faulted for choosing a new deadline so close to the hearing of these applications, that deadline has not yet passed, and may be extended further if necessary. At the time these applications were scheduled, the applicants may have known that the respondent intended to oppose the relief sought, but they were not served with the respondent’s responding materials until early April 2021 and thus were unaware of the grounds for the respondent’s opposition, and the evidence supporting those grounds.
[51] I thus cannot find that the responsibility for the current “time crunch” lays solely at the feet of the applicants. I share the conclusions of Justice Brown as he then was, and reject the respondent’s contention that these applications are effectively moot.
c) Is enforcement of Q3’s letters rogatory contrary to public policy?
[52] Q3 seeks the source codes for hundreds of Ruggedcom products. The respondent treats those source codes as proprietary trade secrets within and outside Canada. That evidence (ie. the source codes being trade secrets) is not challenged by either applicant. It is trite to state that requiring a non-party to disclose sensitive, confidential information can run contrary to public policy, especially when the confidential information “strikes at the heart” of the non-party’s business operations.
[53] The applicants do not dispute that the respondent has an obvious privacy interest in its confidential information and trade secrets. As part and parcel of the ITC proceeding, a protective order was sought and obtained from the ITC on October 30, 2020. The protective order is 17 pages long, and includes eight pages dealing solely with protective mechanisms designed to ensure that non-party source codes do not fall into the hands of either the parties to the ITC proceeding, or potential competitors of the non-party.
[54] There is further evidence in the record that a supplemental protective order was issued in favour of another non-party, Qualcomm Incorporated, on March 3, 2021. This supplemental protective order granted enhanced confidential protections in favour of Qualcomm with respect to any evidence Qualcomm disclosed in the ITC proceeding.
[55] Presently, only the original protective order governs the disclosure of evidence from the respondent in the ITC proceeding.
[56] The respondent further argues that even if the supplemental protective order applied to its interests in the ITC proceeding, in the event of a breach of any of the terms of the supplemental protective order the respondent would be required to attorn to the D.C. jurisdiction in order to seek any consequential relief. Such a result would be unfair and unreasonable. As such, the respondent submits that, even with the protection of the supplemental protective order, enforcing Q3’s letters rogatory order would be contrary to Canadian public policy.
[57] Finally, as parts of the source codes are licensed by the respondent from third parties, the respondent is contractually bound to hold those source codes in confidence. Of course, the respondent would have to disclose those source codes if ordered by the Court.
[58] The respondent’s submissions have some merit. However, there is no evidence in the record from any of the third parties from whom the source codes are licensed, and the respondent has not produced the contractual confidentiality provisions by which it claims to be bound.
[59] In my view, the respondent’s concerns can be addressed by the imposition of terms and conditions as part of any order enforcing the letters rogatory. Q3 has already given sworn evidence that it would be amenable to abiding by the terms of the supplemental protective order as a condition of obtaining the source codes from the respondent.
[60] In addition, the Court may impose compliance with the deemed undertaking (Rule 30.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure) so that no information or documentation obtained from the respondent can be used for any purpose other than the ITC proceeding and/or civil proceeding.
[61] The terms of the supplemental protective order preclude either applicant from accessing any of the source codes sought from the respondent. There is evidence before the court that Siemens AG and SI have already provided sensitive and confidential information to Q3 under the terms of the existing protective orders without issue.
[62] In my view, with the imposition of additional terms and conditions, enforcement of Q3’s letters rogatory is not contrary to public policy.
d) Are Commscope’s Letters Rogatory overly broad and not relevant?
[63] The ambit of Commscope’s letters rogatory has since been narrowed to focus upon financial documentation relating to satisfying the domestic industry requirement, namely demonstrating that SI’s qualifying economic investments are quantitively significant in comparison to the respondent’s economic investments in Canada. Commscope is now seeking financial information in the respondent’s possession relating to the Ruggedcom products relied on by Q3 which will allow Commscope to know or estimate the size of the respondent’s investment in Canada.
[64] As previously stated, the respondent does not maintain records of Ruggedcom’s business on a product by product basis (i.e. it does not typically track expenses incurred by product). The information sought by Commscope is tracked and categorized through Ruggedcom’s cost centres, which encompass costs from various products.
[65] I agree with the respondent that the original scope of the evidence sought under the letters rogatory was quite broad, covering five different subjects with various sub-categories within each subject. In light of Commscope’s position at the hearing of the applications, I do not view the list of those subjects (inclusive of sub-categories) as the appropriate “road map” for oral and documentary discovery of the respondent. At the time of drafting the letters rogatory, Commscope understandably cast a wide net with a view to ensuring that the scope of the letters rogatory encompassed all of the oral and documentary evidence it contemplated needing Naturally, that does not mean that all of the requests and topics set out in the letters rogatory are necessarily relevant.
[66] Commscope has narrowed its scope of oral and documentary discovery as set out above. In my view, the fact that the respondent does not maintain documents that would be explicitly responsive to the letters rogatory is not a reason in and of itself to refuse enforcement. As understood by all parties, this Court maintains a discretion to narrow the scope of the letters rogatory if necessary.
[67] In my view, such a result is a reasonable and proper one. What Commscope seeks is information which would allow Commscope the opportunity to, at a minimum, estimate the size and value of the respondent’s investment in Canada. The fact that there is no “straight line” between the requests and topics in the letters rogatory and the records maintained by the respondent does not dispel the need for the necessary information and source documentation sought by Commscope.
[68] In my view, subject to the additional terms and conditions set out below, the letters rogatory order should be enforced.
Decision
[69] Accordingly, for the reasons set out above I make the following order:
a) the Q3 and Commscope letters rogatory are recognized and enforceable, but made subject to the following narrowed scope:
i. with respect to the Q3 letters rogatory, the respondent shall produce the source codes for the web user interface for changing parameters or settings on the Ruggedcom RX1400, RX1500 and RSG900 series of products; and,
ii. with respect to the Commscope letters rogatory order, the respondent shall produce financial documents supporting the respondent’s investments and activities in Canada related to the specific products made and sold by the respondent being practiced by the four patents (ie. financial documents to assist Commscope to know or estimate the size of the respondent’s investments in Canada).
b) all evidence obtained from and produced by the respondent under the letters rogatory shall be subject to the provisions of the deemed undertaking in Rule 30.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 194;
c) all evidence obtained from and produced by the respondent under the letters rogatory shall be subject to the same terms and provisions of the supplemental protective order (issued in the ITC investigation on March 8, 2021, but effectively substituting “Qualcomm Incorporated” with “Siemens Canada Limited”); and,
d) the applicants shall undertake to this Court, the ITC and the D.C. Court to abide by the terms of the deemed undertaking and the supplemental protective order as described above.
Costs
[70] If the parties are unable to resolve the costs of these applications, they may exchange and file written costs submissions (totaling no more than five pages including a Costs Outline) in accordance with the following schedule:
a) the applicants shall serve and file their written costs submissions within 10 business days of the release of this Endorsement; and
b) the respondent shall serve and file its written costs submissions within 10 business days of the release of the Applicants’ written costs submissions.
Diamond J.
Released: April 15, 2021
COURT FILE NOS.: CV-21-00657624-0000; and CV-21-00656338-0000
DATE: 20210415
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Q3 NETWORKING LLC
Applicant
– and –
SIEMENS CANADA LIMITED
Respondent
AND BETWEEN
COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. COMMSCOPE, INC., ARRIS US HOLDINGS, INC., RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC and NETGEAR, INC.
Applicants
– and –
SIEMENS CANADA LIMITED
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Mr. Justice Diamond
Released: April 15, 2021