Prior to the case at bar, the Federal Court granted Bombardier Recreational Products Inc (“Bombardier”) a permanent injunction as the result of its infringement action. The infringer, Arctic Cat Inc (“Arctic Cat”), sought a stay of the injunction pending an appeal of the decision. However, the Federal Court of Appeal denied the stay as it was not satisfied that irreparable harm was established and the balance of convenience favoured Bombardier.

Distrimedic Inc. (“Distrimedic”), the Defendant in a patent infringement action, appealed an Order of Prothonotary Steele. That Order dismissed Distrimedic’s motion contesting the privilege asserted by Richards Packaging Inc. (“Richards”) over documents in its affidavit of documents. The Court dismissed Distrimedic’s appeal.

This decision concerned the quantum of costs and disbursements payable to the Defendant, Tetra Tech Eba Inc. (“Tetra”), due to its success in defending a patent infringement action brought by the Plaintiff, Georgetown Rail Equipment Company (“Georgetown”).

The Appellants, Amgen Inc. and Amgen Canada Inc. (“Amgen”), appealed a decision of the Federal Court that found claims 43-47 of Canadian Patent No. 1,341,537 to be obvious. Amgen argued that the Federal Court committed a reviewable error in applying the test for obviousness.

The Federal Court dismissed Pharmascience’s appeal of a Prothonotary’s Order ordering Pfizer (i) to produce an unredacted settlement agreement between Pfizer and a third party, contingent on consent of the third party, and (ii) declining to order production of a second unredacted settlement agreement between the same parties (2, 3, 15).

This decision concerned two motions for leave to appeal from a Prothonotary’s interlocutory order made under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 (the “Regulations”) as amended. Apotex Inc was the Applicant and Allergen et al. was the Respondent on the first appeal. Pharmascience Inc was the Applicant and Bayer Inc et al was the Respondent on the second appeal.

The Plaintiff seeks costs, following the Defendant’s filing of a Notice of Discontinuance to discontinue their counterclaim. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff is not entitled to costs because those costs were already addressed in a previous court Order, and also because the items in the Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs do not exist in the list of items provided in Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (FCR).

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.