Tariq Remtulla

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.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract and misrepresentation arising from a franchise agreement.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred.

Before discoveries took place, the plaintiff moved to strike the summary judgment motion on the grounds of prematurity.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, applying the test that such a motion should only be granted in the clearest of cases.

The court found that the summary judgment motion had a reasonable chance of success and the matter was not overly complicated.