671905 Alberta Inc. v. Q Max Solutions Inc.

671905 Alberta Inc. v. Q Max Solutions Inc.

The court refused to order double costs because the November 21, 2000 letter was limited to the plaintiffs' infringement claim, would not have ended the litigation or materially reduced post-offer costs since the counterclaim would proceed, and the offer was revoked before judgment; further the court has discretion under Rule 420(2) and declines to award doubled costs under these facts.

Citation
2002 FCT 1293
Parties
Plaintiff: 671905 Alberta Inc.; Plaintiff: M-I Drilling Fluids Canada Inc.; Defendant (cross Plaintiff by Counterclaim): Q'MAX Solutions Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Invalidity Counterclaim / Post Judgment Costs Motion Under Rule 403; Appeal and Cross Appeal Filed
Outcome
Partially granted in consent as to assessment directions; Q'MAX's request for double costs from November 21, 2000 dismissed; no order as to costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
Offer to Settle, Rule 420(2) Doubling of Costs, Assessment of Costs, Revocation of Settlement Offer, Discretion to Vary Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Costs Intellectual Property Patent Law Offer to Settle Rule 420(2) Doubling of Costs Assessment of Costs Revocation of Settlement Offer +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

671905 Alberta Inc.

Plaintiff

M-I Drilling Fluids Canada Inc.

Plaintiff

Q'MAX Solutions Inc.

Defendant (cross Plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Invalidity Counterclaim / Post Judgment Costs Motion Under Rule 403; Appeal and Cross Appeal Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Q'MAX is entitled to double party-and-party costs under Rule 420(2)(b) from service of its November 21, 2000 offer to settle to the date of judgment
  2. 2 Whether the November 21, 2000 letter constituted an unrevoked, clear and unequivocal settlement offer that would have ended the litigation or significantly reduced post-offer costs
  3. 3 Whether the offer was revoked and the effect of revocation on entitlement to doubled costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to order double costs because the November 21, 2000 letter was limited to the plaintiffs' infringement claim, would not have ended the litigation or materially reduced post-offer costs since the counterclaim would proceed, and the offer was revoked before judgment; further the court has discretion under Rule 420(2) and declines to award doubled costs under these facts.

Court Disposition

Partially granted in consent as to assessment directions; Q'MAX's request for double costs from November 21, 2000 dismissed; no order as to costs of the motion.

Orders

  • Assessment officer shall assess and allow Q'MAX's costs at the highest unit of Column III of Tariff B for specified services (preparation of written representations, pre-trial procedures, trial procedures, travel by counsel, assessment of costs).
  • Assessment officer shall allow fees for one senior and one junior counsel for pre-trial and trial procedures and travel, and work by students-at-law.