3 total
Substantial indemnity costs of $900,000 awarded to defendants due to plaintiff's unfounded allegations of misconduct.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The court found that the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of intentional misconduct, fraud, and conspiracy warranted an elevated scale of costs.
The court distinguished a previous decision involving the same plaintiff and awarded the defendants substantial indemnity costs fixed at $900,000.
Summary judgment granted dismissing generic drug manufacturer's claims as the Patent Regime operates as a complete code.
The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for treble damages and double costs under the Statute of Monopolies and common law torts, following the invalidation of the defendants' patent for Viagra.
Relying on a recent coordinate decision, the court found that the Patent Act and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations operate as a complete code, precluding the plaintiff's claims.
The court also dismissed the plaintiff's additional claims for unjust enrichment and nuisance on their merits.
The motion for summary judgment was granted, and both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed.
The court vacated a scheduled 20-day trial to allow a summary judgment motion following a recent decision on similar issues.
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.
