Angelcare Development Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc.

Angelcare Development Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc.

The Court refused leave to file the Morelli Reply Report except for limited clerical corrections and a few agreed paragraphs because the bulk of the report was confirmatory and argumentative, exceeded the permissible scope of reply evidence and constituted impermissible case‑splitting; allowing it would not assist the Court and would unfairly permit the plaintiffs to have the last word; limited corrections that clarify references were allowed and costs were awarded to defendants.

Citation
2020 FC 1185
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Angelcare Development Inc.; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Edgewell Personal Care Canada ULC; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Playtex Products, LLC; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Angelcare Canada Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Munchkin, Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Munchkin Baby Canada, Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Action / Pre‑trial Motion for Leave to Adduce Reply Expert Evidence (trial Scheduled)
Outcome
Motion to adduce the Morelli Reply Report refused in its entirety except for paragraphs 8, 15‑22, 57‑60 and 80‑81 which are permitted; costs awarded to Defendants in the amount of $1,500.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Reply Evidence, Case‑splitting, Claim Construction, Procedural Fairness, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Evidence Civil Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Reply Evidence Case‑splitting Claim Construction +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angelcare Development Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Edgewell Personal Care Canada ULC

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Playtex Products, LLC

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Angelcare Canada Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Munchkin, Inc.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Munchkin Baby Canada, Ltd.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Action / Pre‑trial Motion for Leave to Adduce Reply Expert Evidence (trial Scheduled)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Morelli Reply Report is admissible as reply expert evidence
  2. 2 Proper scope of reply evidence and prohibition on case‑splitting
  3. 3 Whether identified clerical corrections in the reply report should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave to file the Morelli Reply Report except for limited clerical corrections and a few agreed paragraphs because the bulk of the report was confirmatory and argumentative, exceeded the permissible scope of reply evidence and constituted impermissible case‑splitting; allowing it would not assist the Court and would unfairly permit the plaintiffs to have the last word; limited corrections that clarify references were allowed and costs were awarded to defendants.

Court Disposition

Motion to adduce the Morelli Reply Report refused in its entirety except for paragraphs 8, 15‑22, 57‑60 and 80‑81 which are permitted; costs awarded to Defendants in the amount of $1,500.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' motion to adduce the Morelli Reply Report is refused except for paragraphs 8, 15 to 22, 57 to 60 and 80‑81 which are admitted.
  • Defendants are awarded costs of the motion in the amount of $1,500, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.