J. Alan Aucoin

In a supplementary costs endorsement following trial, the plaintiff requested that the fixing or payment of costs be delayed pending the outcome of separate related litigation involving the same defendant.

The plaintiff argued that potential success in the other action might result in a set-off or divided success between the parties.

The court held that the speculative possibility of future set-off in separate litigation did not justify delaying payment of costs for years.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to defer the obligation to pay costs and noted that a stay motion would have been the more appropriate procedural mechanism if such relief were sought.

Following a trial decision dismissing a claim for unpaid royalties under a patent licence agreement, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $637,000.

The plaintiff accepted entitlement to costs but argued the claim was excessive relative to the scope of the litigation and its own costs.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles in Boucher, the court assessed factors including the complexity of the dispute, the importance of the issues, the parties’ expectations, and the reasonableness of the hours and disbursements claimed.

The court found the defendant’s claimed hours were very high compared to the nature of the four‑day trial and reduced certain disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $300,000 for fees and $90,000 for disbursements, plus HST.

A patent licence dispute arose concerning whether certain orthodontic brackets sold by the defendant were covered by a U.S. patent licensed to the defendant under a royalty agreement.

The plaintiff alleged the products fell within several patent claims and sought unpaid royalties and aggravated damages.

The court conducted a claim construction analysis under U.S. patent law principles and compared the patent claims with the accused products.

It held that although some claim elements were present, the products did not include the required "slidable locking shutter" operating through a sliding motion between open and closed positions.

Because a required claim element was absent, the products did not infringe the patent and were not covered by the licence agreement.

The plaintiff, owner of a US patent for an orthodontic bracket, sued the defendant for breach of a Licence Agreement, alleging the defendant failed to pay royalties on new bracket products.

The court applied US patent law to construe the patent claims and determine infringement.

The court found that the accused products did not infringe the patent because they lacked a slidable locking shutter that moved entirely by sliding motion.

As the products were not covered by the patent, they were not subject to the Licence Agreement, and the plaintiff's claims for royalties and aggravated damages were dismissed.