Daniel Cappe

The plaintiff, a generic drug manufacturer, brought an action for damages against the defendants under s. 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations for delayed market entry of its generic drug.

The plaintiff argued it was entitled to damages because the defendants' prohibition proceeding was dismissed for mootness after the underlying patent was invalidated in a separate proceeding.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff's allegations in the prohibition proceeding had failed on the merits, and s. 8 does not provide redress where the innovator prevailed on the merits but the patent was later invalidated by a third party.

The court also found that, even if liability existed, the plaintiff would not have entered the market any sooner in the hypothetical world due to its risk-averse nature.

Following a five-week trial where the plaintiffs succeeded in claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought over $6.2 million on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendants' litigation conduct did not warrant such a sanction and the pre-litigation conduct was already addressed through punitive damages and disgorgement.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,200,000 for the action and $20,000 for the counterclaim, apportioning liability among the defendants based on the claims.

The plaintiffs, founders of a venture capital fund, brought an action against their co-founders and a third-party purchaser for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and conspiracy.

The court found that the co-founders secretly established a competing fund and conspired with the purchaser to acquire a portfolio company at a discounted price while concealing a valuable asset (the Tinder app).

The court awarded compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits, and punitive damages against the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to amend their Statements of Defence to plead that a patent previously declared invalid by the Federal Court was actually valid, relying on a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision that overturned the 'promise doctrine' used to invalidate it.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, holding that the proposed amendments constituted an impermissible collateral attack and were barred by issue estoppel.

The court found no 'special circumstances' to justify re-litigating the patent's validity, noting that under section 62 of the Patent Act, the Federal Court's declaration rendered the patent void ab initio.