Bauer Hockey Ltd. v. Sport Maska Inc. (CCM Hockey)

Bauer Hockey Ltd. v. Sport Maska Inc. (CCM Hockey)

Award costs on a lump sum basis because tariff would under-indemnify in complex IP litigation; start from 25% of reasonable legal fees, increase to 50% for fees incurred after the plaintiff refused a genuine settlement offer (applying rule 420 by doubling the post-offer percentage), and make specific deductions for failures in disclosure ($50,000), duplicative technical expert evidence ($50,000), unnecessary financial expert attendance ($15,000) and translation costs ($12,139); deny request for instalments; award post-judgment interest at 2.5% simple per annum.

Citation
2020 FC 862
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: Bauer Hockey Ltd.; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Sport Maska Inc. doing business as CCM Hockey
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (intellectual Property) / Costs Assessment Post Judgment (order as to Costs and Reasons)
Outcome
Plaintiff condemned to pay defendant costs in the amount of $2,517,590 inclusive of taxes and disbursements; post-judgment interest at 2.5% per annum on a simple basis from date of order.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Lump Sum Costs Vs Tariff, Offer to Settle (rule 420), Disbursements, Discovery Obligations, Translation Costs, Post Judgment Interest, Request for Instalments
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Costs Assessment Lump Sum Costs Vs Tariff Offer to Settle (rule 420) Disbursements +4 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bauer Hockey Ltd.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Sport Maska Inc. doing business as CCM Hockey

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (intellectual Property) / Costs Assessment Post Judgment (order as to Costs and Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be assessed by tariff or lump sum
  2. 2 Appropriate percentage of recovery of actual legal fees
  3. 3 Application and effect of rule 420 (offer to settle) on lump sum award

Ratio Decidendi

Award costs on a lump sum basis because tariff would under-indemnify in complex IP litigation; start from 25% of reasonable legal fees, increase to 50% for fees incurred after the plaintiff refused a genuine settlement offer (applying rule 420 by doubling the post-offer percentage), and make specific deductions for failures in disclosure ($50,000), duplicative technical expert evidence ($50,000), unnecessary financial expert attendance ($15,000) and translation costs ($12,139); deny request for instalments; award post-judgment interest at 2.5% simple per annum.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff condemned to pay defendant costs in the amount of $2,517,590 inclusive of taxes and disbursements; post-judgment interest at 2.5% per annum on a simple basis from date of order.

Orders

  • Plaintiff is condemned to pay costs in the amount of $2,517,590 to the defendant, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.
  • Plaintiff is condemned to pay post-judgment interest calculated on a simple basis at a rate of 2.5% per annum from the date of this order.