Andrew Ryan Brodkin

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The respondents, who won the appeal, claimed over $157,000 in costs.

The appellants, who lost the appeal, proposed $25,000.

The court found the respondents' costs submissions inadequate, lacking sufficient explanation for the hours claimed and indicating potential over-preparation.

The court ultimately awarded $25,000 in costs, finding the appellants' offer to settle on costs to be the best evidence of a reasonable, fair, and proportionate amount in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding a request to vary a trial costs award.

Following a successful appeal and cross-appeal by the Respondents (plaintiffs/defendants by counterclaim), they sought to vary the trial costs award, arguing entitlement to a higher scale due to beating a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The Appellants (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim) opposed this request.

The Court declined to vary its decision, noting that the Respondents had not appealed or sought leave to appeal the trial costs, nor had they raised the issue in their notices of cross-appeal or in their submissions on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by two groups of appellants (Varma/Madra and Palihapitiya) and allowed a cross-appeal by the respondents.

The case involved corporate malfeasance, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, knowing assistance, and conspiracy related to the establishment of a competing fund (Annex Fund) and the undervalued sale of a technology company (Xtreme Labs), including the concealment of an equity interest in Hatch Labs (Tinder).

The trial judge's findings of liability for damages and disgorgement were largely upheld, and the disgorgement amount was increased on cross-appeal to serve a stronger deterrent purpose.

The court affirmed that directors of a corporate general partner can owe fiduciary duties directly to a limited partnership.

The defendants sought to adjourn a scheduled 20-day trial to bring a summary judgment motion, or alternatively, to await a decision in a similar case.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing procedural requirements for such an adjournment.

Following a relevant summary judgment decision by another judge in a related action, the court vacated the trial date and ordered a schedule for the defendants' summary judgment motion.

The court found that a summary judgment could resolve the case more quickly and cheaply, emphasizing judicial economy and the principle of stare decisis, and that prior decisions refusing summary judgment in similar cases did not preclude reconsideration given new circumstances.

The defendants brought two motions to amend their pleadings in an action for "section 8" damages under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

The proposed amendments sought to introduce a defence based on the ex turpi causa doctrine, arguing that the plaintiff's alleged non-infringing alternative (NIA) would infringe a third-party patent, thus making hypothetical sales unlawful and precluding damages.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendments were not tenable and would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court, applying Rule 26.01, found the proposed amendments raised tenable legal arguments, distinguishing and interpreting relevant case law on NIAs and the ex turpi causa doctrine.

The court also found that any prejudice to the plaintiff could be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The motions to amend the pleadings were granted.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a pharmaceutical patent dispute.

The Court of Appeal determined that costs in the cause was not appropriate and awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis: $15,000 from Takeda and $25,000 from Abbott, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This appeal concerns damages claimed by Apotex for lost sales of its generic drug Apo-lansoprazole due to proceedings initiated by Abbott and Takeda under section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

The motion judge dismissed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Apotex would have received regulatory approval on April 17, 2007, but for the section 6 proceedings.

The appellants argued that Apotex's submission was deficient because it lacked a high-fat meal bioequivalence study.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no legal requirement for such a study and ample evidence supporting approval on the original submission.

The Court allowed AstraZeneca’s appeal and held the patent ‘promise doctrine’ is not the correct approach to utility under s. 2 of the Patent Act.

It found the doctrine improperly imports disclosure obligations into the utility requirement and wrongly invalidates patents when one of multiple promised uses is unproven.

The correct test asks whether the claimed subject-matter has at least one practical use related to that subject-matter, demonstrated or soundly predicted at filing.

Applying that test, the ‘653 patent had sufficient utility and was not invalid.

In this patent damages appeal under s. 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, the Court upheld the Federal Court of Appeal decision and dismissed the patentees' appeal.

The Court agreed with the majority's reasoning on liability period, market-entry assumptions, and compensation for lost sales tied to unapproved indications.