[52] For the reasons provided above, the Defendant’s motion is dismissed. [53] The Plaintiffs stated at the hearing of this motion that they are seeking costs in the amount of $3,000, should they be successful. The Plaintiffs were wholly successful on this motion. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs their costs of this motion which I hereby fix in the lump sum amount of $1,000, all inclusive, within 90 days of the date of this Order. [54] I have exercised my discretion to award a low amount of costs because of the parties’ failure to be practical that is reflected in the record that is before me. The Plaintiffs complied with the early scheduling order and then applied their own view of proportionality with respect to further examinations of inventors. The Plaintiffs ought not to be rewarded for hindering the Defendant’s procedural rights to examine inventors, and the Defendant should be made to understand by way of costs order, albeit a modest one, that the Orders sought on this motion were simply not supported by either the jurisprudence, the Rules, or the Regulation. [55] The RIAS and the industry/regulatory compromises given effect through the Regulations reflect a real concern that litigation pursuant to the Regulations must proceed from service of the Statement of Claim to a trial decision in a very short time frame that is easily derailed by one party’s failures to cooperate reasonably at any given time throughout the process. Section 6.09 of the Regulation recognizes that the parties are to reasonably cooperate to expedite any action. This Court’s Case and Trial Management Guidelines for Complex Proceedings and Proceedings under the PM(NOC) Regulation contain a direction that parties are to make a bona fide effort to agree and set realistic timetables in their discovery plans. A failure to do so can result in consequences, including significant costs. Other types of Orders such as restrictions on examination rights may be made to drive home the point that a failure to cooperate reasonably on issues of process and procedure that do not detrimentally affect a party’s legitimate interests and rights in the cause but results in running down the litigation clock is not acceptable. [56] The parties are encouraged to have meaningful discussions to schedule the examination for discovery of inventors. The parties may request a case management conference for the Court’s assistance in scheduling and carrying out those examinations for discovery should they not be able to agree. THIS COURT ORDERS that: The Defendant’s motion is dismissed. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs their costs of this motion in the amount of $1,000, all inclusive, within 90 days of the date of this Order.