Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centers on enforcement of a Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement governing InfinityQ’s confidential information and intellectual property.
• Evidence showed the former CTO and director, Dr. Saavan Patel, retained a hard drive “backup of a backup” and held key access credentials to InfinityQ’s IP infrastructure after his employment ended.
• The Court weighed Patel’s claim of substantial unpaid wages and alleged employer breaches against his ongoing contractual, fiduciary and statutory duties of confidentiality and loyalty.
• The Plaintiff established an appearance of right, serious risk of harm to a pending IP sale to JFW Ventures, and that Patel’s withholding of access could jeopardize the transaction.
• The balance of inconvenience favored compelling return of IP and access credentials, especially given InfinityQ’s precarious financial position and servers housed in unpaid commercial premises.
• The Court granted a safeguard order requiring broad return of IP, credentials and documentation, and enjoined Patel from using, disclosing, or marketing InfinityQ’s confidential information, with costs reserved.

Background and parties

InfinityQ Technology Inc. is a Montreal-based company operating in the field of quantum computing (information quantique). Its work involves proprietary software, source code, servers and patent-related materials. Dr. Saavan Patel became InfinityQ’s Chief Technology Officer (CTO) as of June 23, 2023 and also served as one of its directors. His employment contract, dated June 28, 2023, included as an appendix a “Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement,” which he signed. This Agreement became central to the dispute.

Key contractual and confidentiality obligations

The Agreement contains a broad confidentiality clause requiring Patel, during and after his employment, to hold InfinityQ’s confidential information “in strictest confidence,” to use it only for the benefit of InfinityQ in performing his duties, and not to disclose it to others without the company’s written authorization. Confidential Information is defined as information and physical material not generally known or available outside the company, and also information entrusted to InfinityQ by third parties. The Agreement further obliges Patel to deliver to InfinityQ, and not to keep, recreate or deliver to anyone else, any confidential information in his possession. It also provides that a breach of these obligations may cause “irreparable harm” to InfinityQ and that the company is entitled to seek temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions in court.

Events leading to the dispute

InfinityQ encountered serious financial difficulties. According to Patel, InfinityQ stopped paying his salary on April 14, 2025, leaving him with unpaid wages and vacation (backpay) totaling approximately $77,589.67. Around May 2025, the company dismissed its engineers and staff, leaving only the then-CEO (Aurélie Helouis) and Patel. Access for departing staff was revoked, but Patel states he did not further restrict or modify access. He also personally paid $1,000 to the landlord on June 12, 2025, attempting to delay eviction and preserve the company’s lease for an anticipated transaction.

On June 19, 2025, a Letter of Intent was executed by several individuals and a company that went on to create JFW Ventures Pte. Ltd. (JFW), a Singapore-based company focused on software and application development. The LOI contemplated the purchase of InfinityQ’s intellectual property by JFW. This proposed sale of IP became a critical backdrop to the Court’s assessment of urgency and risk of harm.

InfinityQ alleged that, over the weeks leading up to the application, Patel was repeatedly asked to provide access and/or copies of the company’s intellectual property to InfinityQ. This included a hard drive kept at his residence containing source code and his credentials (username, password and two-factor authentication details) to access the Google Cloud infrastructure, to which only he allegedly had login access. InfinityQ maintained that Patel refused, asserting he was entitled to payment for the IP because he helped create it, or alternatively to ownership or rights over the IP. The company characterized these positions as unfounded, in breach of his duty of loyalty and the Agreement.

InfinityQ also alleged that Patel independently sought competing offers for InfinityQ’s IP without authorization from its board, disclosing confidential information in the process. The company argued that these actions could jeopardize the prospective JFW transaction and demonstrated Patel’s apparent belief that he had rights over the IP.

Patel’s position and wage dispute

Patel filed an affidavit (which did not formally meet the evidentiary requirements under the Courts of Justice Act, although the Court treated it as akin to written submissions). He asserted that he never claimed ownership of InfinityQ’s IP and accepted that all code, files and documents belong to the company. He maintained that, to his knowledge, all relevant IP was on computers and servers at InfinityQ’s offices, under corporate custody and control.

He emphasized his unpaid back wages and vacation, and the company’s deteriorating financial condition. He stated that, on June 30, 2025, InfinityQ’s CEO John Mullen instructed him to collect all outstanding offers for the IP by July 4, 2025. On that date, he provided competing offers and JFW was selected. Patel maintained that since July 4, 2025, he had not sought further competing offers nor communicated with third parties about an IP sale.

Patel recounted that on July 24, 2025, he was informed he would not receive his backpay. The next day, he notified Mullen that non-payment constituted a fundamental breach of his employment contract and that he would suspend further work until his backpay was resolved. On August 10, 2025, he requested information on payment of backpay, who was acting as CEO, and his employment status, but received no response. On August 18, 2025, he filed a CNESST wage complaint.

Patel also formally undertook, if requested, to maintain strict confidentiality with no third-party outreach concerning any IP sale, not to obstruct any provider-led credential recovery by InfinityQ with entities like Google Cloud, AWS, Azure or Atlassian/Bitbucket, and to deposit any identified corporate physical device in his possession into escrow with the court registry or a neutral third party during the injunction proceedings.

The demand letter and the safeguard application

On August 7, 2025, InfinityQ sent a demand letter to Patel requesting that he return “all copies and/or access” to InfinityQ’s intellectual property “without further delay” and to cease seeking competing offers or disclosing confidential information. The letter further offered to pay him $600 for the work of transferring the information allegedly in his possession, framing this as compensation for his effort rather than an admission of any entitlement to the IP itself.

InfinityQ then filed an Originating Application seeking a safeguard order, as well as interlocutory and permanent injunctions. The amended application, served on August 29, 2025, requested an order compelling Patel to return certain information and physical materials described collectively as the “InfinityQ IP.” Supported by an affidavit from InfinityQ’s CEO, John Mullen, the application detailed the LOI with JFW, the nature of the company’s financial difficulties, and Patel’s allegedly obstructive conduct.

Legal framework: safeguard orders and duties of loyalty

The Court reminded the parties that to obtain a safeguard order, the applicant must demonstrate (1) an appearance of right, (2) a risk of serious or irreparable harm, (3) a balance of inconvenience favoring the applicant, and (4) urgency. The judge referred to Quebec jurisprudence on safeguard measures and to article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec, which codifies an employee’s duty of loyalty and confidentiality, including following termination of employment. The Court also noted Patel’s contractual confidentiality and invention assignment obligations and his duties as a former director and employee.

In the Court’s view, a wage dispute does not allow an employee (even a former senior officer) to withhold confidential information belonging to the employer or to condition its return on resolution of the wage claim, nor to place it in the custody of a third party pending resolution of the salary dispute. The judge treated Patel’s wage-related rights as legally distinct from the ownership of the confidential information and IP, which remained with InfinityQ.

Appearance of right

The Court found that the InfinityQ IP qualified as confidential information under the Agreement and that it appeared to be the property of InfinityQ. Patel did not assert any property rights over the information or materials themselves. However, he admitted that he had in his possession a physical hard drive that he described as a “backup of a backup.”

The Court accepted the plaintiff’s characterization that the matter before it was fundamentally about the return and control of IP and confidential information, not a wage or employment claim, although those issues formed part of the factual context. Because Patel appeared to hold confidential information belonging to InfinityQ without legal justification, the Court concluded that InfinityQ had shown an appearance of right in support of the requested safeguard order.

Risk of serious injury

The Court next considered risk of serious injury or irreparable harm. The InfinityQ IP was the very asset JFW intended to purchase from InfinityQ. Patel’s refusal to return the IP and provide access credentials could frustrate or derail the prospective transaction. If the sale failed because InfinityQ could not deliver its own IP, the company’s financial condition could worsen significantly, potentially extinguishing a key opportunity to secure liquidity.

The Agreement itself stated that breach of the confidentiality and assignment obligations could cause InfinityQ “irreparable harm.” While such contractual language is not determinative on its own, the Court viewed it as consistent with the evidence of the strategic and financial importance of the IP. The judge concluded that InfinityQ had established the risk of serious injury for the purposes of safeguard relief.

Balance of inconvenience

On the balance of inconvenience, Patel argued that returning the IP and complying with the orders would amount to unpaid labour, especially in light of his substantial unpaid wages. The Court rejected this characterization. It held that the return of IP and provision of credentials concerned property already owned by InfinityQ and that Patel’s ongoing refusal to hand over access was not justified by his wage claim.

The judge was not persuaded that returning the InfinityQ IP would impose an unreasonable burden or require unreasonable effort from Patel. InfinityQ had already offered $600 to compensate him for the work involved in transferring information. However, the Court did find that one part of the relief sought—paragraph 15(q) of the Application, which requested “[a]ny other similar information require[d] to obtain access to information belonging to InfinityQ”—was overly broad. The judge struck that language to tailor the safeguard order and limit any excessive or open-ended obligations.

Patel’s concern that he would never be paid his wages if he cooperated was characterized as speculative. In contrast, the Court noted that returning the IP and facilitating the JFW transaction might generate liquidity that could enable InfinityQ to pay some or all of its liabilities, including any amounts potentially owed to Patel. With this reasoning, the balance of inconvenience clearly favored InfinityQ once the overly broad catch-all paragraph was removed.

Urgency and financial context

The Court also addressed urgency. It found that Patel appeared to be in ongoing breach of his contractual and statutory obligations of confidentiality and loyalty as a former CTO and director. InfinityQ’s financial position was described as precarious and likely deteriorating. The company’s servers were hosted in commercial premises for which InfinityQ was no longer paying rent, adding practical risk to the security and accessibility of its IP infrastructure.

The intended transaction with JFW was contingent on timely return of the InfinityQ IP. The Court concluded that if InfinityQ could not promptly regain control of its own IP and provide it for the contemplated sale, the transaction might fall through. On that basis, the Court determined that the situation was urgent and that the safeguard order was necessary to stabilize matters until a later interlocutory hearing.

Scope of the safeguard order

Having found all four criteria satisfied, the Court issued a safeguard order to remain in force until judgment on the interlocutory injunction. The order is detailed and far-reaching. It compels Patel to return to InfinityQ, and provide access to, a wide array of systems, credentials and documents, including:

• Access to Google Cloud (production system), Microsoft Azure and InfinityQ’s internal servers.
• Access to Amazon Web Services (AWS).
• Access to the development code stored on Bitbucket.
• Full source code, object code and executable files for InfinityQ’s TitanQ system, including all versions used in proof-of-concept projects.
• The “trade secret” code contained on the hard drive in his possession.
• Copies of unfiled patent-related materials, including documentation for any pre-filed patent application regarding the Ising machine technology, any provisional applications, prior art searches, and correspondence with patent counsel, as well as information related to the Kapanova patent and the Tarek Oud-Bachir IP agreement.
• Passwords for all seized workstations and servers, passphrases required to decrypt Linux Pop!_OS hard drives, and credentials for Bitbucket, Gitea, GitHub, AWS and Google Cloud Platform.
• Email credentials for accounts under the @infinityQ.tech domain, VPN credentials (if configured), access to internal documentation, network diagrams and IT asset inventories.
• Administrator or root credentials for on-premise or virtualized servers.
• All user manuals, technical specifications, developer guides and API documentation for the TitanQ system.

In addition to requiring the return of these items and credentials, the Court ordered Patel to refrain from using, disclosing or communicating any confidential or proprietary information, asset or document belonging to InfinityQ. He was also ordered not to solicit or seek offers to purchase InfinityQ’s confidential or proprietary information or assets, including its intellectual property.

The judgment further provided that provisional execution would apply notwithstanding appeal, exempted InfinityQ from providing security for costs, allowed service of the judgment outside regular legal hours and juridical days, and shortened delays for service of the application. Legal costs were left “to follow,” meaning they were not quantified or awarded in a specific amount at this stage.

Outcome and monetary relief

In outcome, InfinityQ was successful on its safeguard application. The Court granted the company extensive injunctive relief compelling Patel to return and unlock the full suite of InfinityQ’s confidential IP, systems and documentation, and restraining him from using or marketing that information or seeking competing offers. Patel’s wage-related complaints and CNESST claim were acknowledged as part of the factual context but did not justify retaining the IP or conditioning its return on resolution of his backpay.

No specific damages or dollar-value award was made in this judgment. The Court noted that costs would “follow,” but did not fix any quantified amount for costs, damages, or other monetary relief. The earlier $600 offer from InfinityQ appeared only in the context of the demand letter and was not incorporated into the Court’s operative orders. Accordingly, while InfinityQ is clearly the successful party at this stage, the total monetary award or costs ordered in its favor cannot be determined from this decision because no precise sum is awarded or assessed.