For The First Time In Canada, the Federal Court Finds Infringement by Common Design

Authors: Marian Wolanski and Oleyna Strigul

For the first time ever in Canada, on November 14, 2025 the Federal Court found a party liable for patent infringement by common design in Adeia Guides Inc v Videotron Ltd,  2025 FC 1725.

The Plaintiff, Adeia Guides Inc, owned a number of patents relating to “interactive television program guide” technology, including Canadian patents 2,967,187 (the “187 Patent”) and 2,775,674 (the “674 Patent”). The defendant, Videotron Ltd, is a company that provides cable television equipment and related services to customers in Canada, including offering interactive cable television services such as search functionality, and electronic content guides. Adeia Guides asserted that Videotron had engaged in infringement by common design by subcontracting aspects of its system architecture (Helix TV and VRAI) to Comcast and Brightcove.

Infringement by common design is a doctrine that originates from the United Kingdom and occurs when two parties agree on a common action and, in carrying out that action together, infringe on the rights of the plaintiff. In Canada, the theory of common design has been accepted in the context of torts, but in the context of patent infringement, common design had only been recognized as a possibility as no prior case actually turned on that issue. 

The Federal Court per Justice Gagnée found Videotron liable for infringement on the theory of common design through its contractual agreement with Comcast. In particular, the Court found the “Resume Viewing” function in the Helix TV and VRAI features to be infringing the claims of the 187 and 674 Patents. Videotron and Comcast were actively engaged in providing the Helix TV system to Videotron’s customers. The specific common design was to launch Videotron’s Helix TV offerings with the “Resume Viewing” function through sub-contracting part of their patent infringement to Comcast. The Court also held that Comcast not being a party to the litigation did not bar the finding of common design.  

As for Brightcove, there was insufficient evidence of the contractual relationship between Videotron and Brightcove to prove infringement by common design.  

This decision is the first to find infringement by common design in Canada, making it clear that this doctrine is available in the context of a patent infringement action even if not all impugned parties are named. As simply put by Justice Gagnée, the main takeaway from this case is that “one cannot escape liability for patent infringement by virtue of subcontracting out a portion of the infringing act, or by being but one party to an overall harm towards another”. 

Videotron has filed appeals of the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal (A-393-25, A-394-25, A-395-25).