In the context of a patent infringement action, a motion was brought to compel answers to certain discovery questions.

In the context of a patent infringement action, the parties brought a number of motions that were decided by the Court, and costs were ordered. This decision relates to the assessment of those costs.

This decision related to a motion brought by the Defendant, uniQure BioPharma B.V., where the main action (the “Action”), brought by Pfizer Canada ULC and Pfizer Inc. (collectively, “Pfizer”), was to impeach uniQure’s Canadian Patent No. 2,737,094. The motion was for a stay of the proceeding on the basis that the 094 Patent was being re-examined at uniQure’s request, and in that process the scope of the claims and the issues in the proceeding may be narrowed.

This decision arose from an appeal brought by dTechs EPM Ltd. (dTechs) of a judgment of the Federal Court (FC) dismissing dTechs’ claim for infringement of its Canadian patent No. 2,549,087 against the respondents British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) and Awesense Wireless Inc. (Awesense).

The Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim, TELUS Corp and TELUS Health Solutions (Defendants), sought security for costs pursuant to Rule 416(1)(b). The principles applicable on such a motion are well established, including that the quantum of costs is at the discretion of the Court and must correspond to the probable costs to which the Defendant would be entitled.

In an action brought under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH & Co KG, and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH (collectively, “BI”), redacted information from documents before they were disclosed to Pharmascience Inc (“Pharmascience”).

The appellant wholly discontinued an appeal proceeding, entitling the respondent to costs forthwith, which may be assessed. The respondent subsequently filed costs submissions, including a draft bill of costs, which initiated an assessment of costs.

In this decision, the Federal Court of Canada (the “Court”) denied the Plaintiff’s motion to strike a statement of defence. The Plaintiffs sought such orders on the grounds that the Defendants’ failure to appoint new solicitors of record constituted an abuse of process.

This decision involved an appeal of the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks, in which the Registrar had expunged the Applicant’s Trademark Registration No. TMA287136 for the trademark DOUBLE SWALLOW BRAND & DESIGN (the “Trademark”) due to the Applicant’s failure to show evidence of use.

This decision concerned a motion by the Plaintiffs under Rule 36 of the Federal Courts Rules to request a six-month adjournment of the trial of the underlying trademark action. The Plaintiffs requested the adjournment on the basis that its recently retained expert witness needed additional time to prepare her report.