4 total
Defendant in patent case awarded $371,260.50 lump sum costs equivalent to top of Column V.
Following a liability phase regarding three pharmaceutical patents, Teva brought a motion for directions on costs seeking a lump sum of 37.5% of its legal fees plus disbursements.
The plaintiffs did not oppose directions for costs on two dropped patents but argued the lump sum should be reduced and calculated differently.
The Federal Court ordered a lump sum costs award but found the circumstances did not warrant an elevated award beyond what would be comparable to the top of Column V of Tariff B. Teva was awarded $371,260.50 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and tax.
Rule 227 motion dismissed as plaintiff failed to prove further documents likely existed.
In an action for patent infringement regarding internet search engine advertising systems, the plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 227 of the Federal Courts Rules seeking an order requiring the defendants to produce a further and better affidavit of documents or to allow cross-examination on their affidavit of documents.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants' amended defence and expert reports introduced new theories of non-infringing alternatives, suggesting further undisclosed documents likely existed.
The Court found that the plaintiff's arguments were largely speculative and failed to meet the burden of showing that further documents likely existed with convincing evidence.
The motion was dismissed, but the defendants were ordered to serve a current sworn or affirmed affidavit of documents to reflect additional productions made since their original affidavit.
Motion to amend Statement of Defence allowed in PMNOC patent infringement action.
The defendant in a patent infringement action under the PMNOC Regulations moved to amend its Statement of Defence to add new grounds of invalidity and prior art references not included in its Notice of Allegation.
The court found that the PMNOC Regulations do not strictly limit the issues in the proceeding to those raised in the NOA.
The amendments were allowed as they were already in play in a related proceeding and did not cause significant prejudice.
Motion to set aside Mareva injunction dismissed, but varied for living/legal expenses and transcripts sealed.
The Canadian respondents brought a motion to set aside an ex parte Mareva injunction that froze their assets worldwide.
They argued the injunction should be set aside due to material non-disclosure by the applicants and insufficient evidence of their involvement in the alleged $71.7 million fraud or risk of dissipation.
The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding no material non-disclosure and sufficient evidence of knowing receipt of misappropriated funds and risk of dissipation.
However, the court varied the order to release funds for the respondents' living and legal expenses.
The court also granted a sealing order over the transcripts of the respondents' compelled examinations to protect their rights against self-incrimination in light of a criminal investigation in Iran.
The respondents' request for security for the applicants' undertaking as to damages was denied.
