Camso Inc. v. Soucy International Inc.

Camso Inc. v. Soucy International Inc.

The court awarded a lump sum of $570,000 to the defendants (30% of $1,900,000 paid) after exercising its Rule 400 discretion: it found defendants were completely successful, Rule 420 applied to potentially double costs after August 27, 2018, but adjusted the draft costs by disallowing specific items, reducing expert fees (notably Leblanc from ≈$388,000 to $150,000), and using the higher unit of Tariff B column IV as a comparator; the resulting assessment supported a 30% lump sum.

Citation
2019 FC 816
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Camso Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Soucy International Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Kimpex Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (atv Track Assemblies) / Post Trial Costs Submissions Following Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Costs awarded to the defendants
Legal Topics
Infringement, Invalidity, Offers to Settle and Rule 420, Tariff B Costs Assessment, Expert Evidence
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Costs Infringement Invalidity Offers to Settle and Rule 420 Tariff B Costs Assessment +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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Camso Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Soucy International Inc.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Kimpex Inc.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (atv Track Assemblies) / Post Trial Costs Submissions Following Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to defendants following dismissal of plaintiff's action and grant of counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether Rule 420 applies to give double costs after defendants' settlement offer of August 27, 2018
  3. 3 Which column of Tariff B is appropriate as comparator for a lump sum award

Ratio Decidendi

The court awarded a lump sum of $570,000 to the defendants (30% of $1,900,000 paid) after exercising its Rule 400 discretion: it found defendants were completely successful, Rule 420 applied to potentially double costs after August 27, 2018, but adjusted the draft costs by disallowing specific items, reducing expert fees (notably Leblanc from ≈$388,000 to $150,000), and using the higher unit of Tariff B column IV as a comparator; the resulting assessment supported a 30% lump sum.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the defendants

Orders

  • Costs payable to the defendants by the plaintiff in the amount of $570,000.