In a noteable decision released on November 14, 2025, the Federal Court of Canada addressed and applied for the first time in a decision the doctrine of common design in the context of patent infringement. The case, Adeia Guides Inc. v Videotron Ltd., 2025 FC 1725, offers valuable insights for technology companies, patent holders, and legal professionals navigating the complexities of collaborative service delivery and intellectual property rights.

This blog post explores how the doctrine of common design was applied, what it means for parties working together on technology platforms, and why it matters for patent enforcement in Canada.

---

What Is the Doctrine of Common Design?

The doctrine of common design originates from UK tort law and refers to a situation where two or more parties act together in a coordinated way to commit a wrongful act. In the patent context, it means that a company can be held liable for infringement even if some infringing steps are carried out by a third party, as long as both parties are acting in concert.

Justice Gagné summarized the doctrine as follows:

“Common design has been accepted in Canada in the context of large torts… and occasionally referenced in the context of patent infringement cases… although no case of patent infringement has in fact turned on that issue.”
— ¶470

She cited the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Fish & Fish v Sea Shepherd [2015] UKSC 10:

“[F]or a respondent to be jointly liable with the principal tortfeasor, the two must combine to do acts which constituted a tort. That required proof of two elements: the respondent i) must have acted in a way which furthered the commission of the tort by the principal tortfeasor; and ii) must have done so in pursuance of a common design to commit the tort.”
— ¶471

---

Applying Common Design in Adeia v Videotron

In this case, Adeia alleged that Videotron infringed two of its patents (the 187 and 674 Patents) through its Helix TV service, which was developed in partnership with Comcast. Videotron argued that it should not be held liable for actions performed by Comcast, a third-party provider based in the United States.

Justice Gagné rejected this argument and found Videotron liable under the doctrine of common design:

“Put simply, 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.”
— ¶476

She emphasized that Videotron was actively involved in the development and deployment of the Helix TV system and had worked closely with Comcast to implement features that were found to infringe Adeia’s patents:

“Videotron was not a docile party – it was engaged in the acts of infringement. Comcast not being included in this litigation does not bar the finding of common design, as both parties do not need to be named defendants to find infringement by common design (Sea Shepherd, at para 55).”
— ¶481

The Court concluded:

“Videotron infringed both the 187 Patent and the 674 Patent through their contractual agreement with Comcast. In this case, the specific common design was to launch Videotron’s Helix TV offerings with the ‘Resume Viewing’ function, through subcontracting part of their patent infringement to Comcast.”
— ¶482

---

Why This Matters

This decision is significant because it confirms that Canadian courts are willing to apply the doctrine of common design in patent cases. It sends a clear message: companies cannot avoid liability for infringement simply by outsourcing parts of their operations to third parties.

Key takeaways include:

• Shared responsibility: If two parties collaborate to deliver a service that infringes a patent, both may be held liable.
• No escape via outsourcing: Subcontracting does not shield a company from infringement claims.
• Active involvement matters: Courts will look at the degree of participation and control in the infringing activity.

---

Limits of Common Design: The Brightcove Example

Interestingly, the Court declined to apply the doctrine of common design to Videotron’s relationship with Brightcove, which delivered content for the VRAI platform. Justice Gagné explained:

“In my view, there is not sufficient evidence of the contractual relationship between Videotron and Brightcove… to find that Adeia has met its burden to prove that Videotron would have participated in the design of the VRAI ‘Resume Viewing’ menu.”
— ¶483

This distinction highlights the importance of evidence in establishing a common design. Mere association or subcontracting is not enough—there must be proof of coordinated action and shared intent.

---

Conclusion

The Federal Court’s decision in Adeia v Videotron marks a turning point in Canadian patent law. By applying the doctrine of common design, the Court expanded the scope of liability for infringement and reinforced the principle that companies must take responsibility for the full impact of their collaborative ventures.

For patent holders, this ruling strengthens enforcement options. For service providers, it underscores the need for careful legal review when partnering with third parties.

If your business relies on outsourced technology or shared platforms, now is the time to review your contracts and compliance strategies.

---

Want to Read the Full Case?

You can access the case, Adeia Guides Inc. v Videotron Ltd., 2025 FC 1725 here. 

For more news and resources be sure to visit our Knowledge Center.

Updated November 2025