In this decision, the Federal Court considered an appeal of a simplified action for copyright infringement of six photographs (the “Photographs”) decided by Prothonotary Fulanetto (as she then was). The decision under appeal awarded the author of the Photographs, Respondent Alexander Stoss, $3,983.40 in damages and $9,493.94 in costs.

Mr. Seymour appealed an Order of the Motions Judge, dismissing his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents wherein the Commissioner had refused to grant the appellant’s application for a patent.

Following a claim of patent infringement, NCS Multistage Inc. (“NCS”) filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of non-infringement, relying on the prior use defence under section 56 of the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4 (the “PA”). NCS filed a fact affidavit in support of the summary judgment motion.

In this decision, Justice McHaffie provided reasons for awarding costs. The underlying litigation was a patent infringement action where the Court dismissed Guest Tek Entertainment Ltd.’s (“Guest Tek”) claim for patent infringement, and Nomadix Inc.’s (“Nomadix”) counterclaim for declarations of invalidity.

After finding the asserted claims of DeepRoot’s patents were valid and infringed by the Defendant, GreenBlue Urban North America Inc. and dismissing GreenBlue’s counterclaim, the Court directed the parties to discuss costs and make submissions if unable to agree as to quantum.

The applicant sought to find the respondent and his company in contempt of an earlier ruling (see 2016 FC 294 affirmed 2018 FCA 222), in which infringement was found of the CSA’a 2015 Canadian Electrical Code. The alleged contempt was based on reproduction of a new version of the code through a new related corporate entity based in the United States.

Caterpillar Inc. owns registrations for CAT, in word and design forms, for footwear and headgear. Puma SE filed a trademark application for “procat” for footwear and headwear. Caterpillar opposed Puma’s application, based on likelihood of confusion.

In March 2019, the Plaintiff, a copyright collective known as SOCAN, brought a claim against the Defendants for infringing copyrights in musical works. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants performed live music and karaoke to works owned by the Plaintiff.

In this case, Voltage Pictures, LLC, a group of production companies (“Voltage”), sought certification of a respondent class proceeding, known as a “reverse class action.” Voltage alleged copyright infringement of five of its films and contended that the Appellant, and Respondent on cross-appeal, Robert Salna, had infringed its copyright by enabling the films to be downloaded through BitTorrent, a protocol for peer-to-peer sharing.

This decision of the Court of Appeal on costs follows the Court’s decision of May 26, 2021, in which it upheld a Federal Court decision awarding the respondents an interlocutory injunction in a copyright infringement action.