This matter concerns an assessment of costs pursuant to 1) a Judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”), wherein the Appellant’s appeal from an Order of the Federal Court was “dismissed with costs, including the costs of preparation of the appeal book”; and 2) an Order of the FCA, wherein the Respondent was awarded costs in relation to the Appellant’s motion.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of the Federal Court judgment, Camso Inc., v Soucy International Inc. et al., 2019 FC 255 (FC Reasons), dismissing an action involving three patents, 2,388,294 (the ‘294 Patent), 2,828,509 (the ‘509 Patent), and 2,822,562 (the ‘562 Patent), because it concluded the claims at issue in each patent were invalid for anticipation and obviousness (FCA Reasons 1, 2, 6).

This Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decision is the second appeal decision following a 2016 decision of the Federal Court (FC). The 2016 FC decision dismissed the Appellants’ application for infringement of the Appellants’ registered trademarks and passing off.

This decision concerns a motion by the Plaintiffs to seek leave to file reply expert reports from its expert witnesses in a patent impeachment action. The reply expert reports include the experts’ responses to new issues and a rebuttal to the Defendant’s expert’s claim construction based on correspondence with the patent office during prosecution of the patent (s. 53.1(1) of the Patent Act).

Federal Court rules the principles of reply evidence from trial apply to expert reports

In this decision, Prothonotary Aalto emphatically states that the Federal Court expressly has jurisdiction to adjudicate matters of patent ownership.

After a finding that the defendant had infringed the copyright in hundreds of photographs and other materials by reproducing them on several websites by way of summary judgment (see 2019 FC 1524) and an order awarding over $350,000 in statutory damages (see 2020 FC 794), the Court considered the appropriate costs award.

This decision arises out of a motion brought by the Defendant, Sport Maska Inc. (“CCM”), seeking leave to file a supplemental expert report.

Lickerish alleged unauthorized reproduction of two photographs of Meghan Markle on Airg’s website constituting copyright infringement. Lickerish asserted that Dimitry Loiseau, a photographer, took the photographs and entered an exclusive contract with Lickerish for the syndication of the photographs.

In this decision under the PM(NOC) Regulations, Justice Crampton considered three separate issues and found that (1) Allergan’s formulation patent for RAPAFLO was not infringed by Sandoz’s proposed generic product; (2) file wrapper estoppel does not apply to an exclusive licensee; and (3) the formulation patent was not invalid for obviousness.