Spin Master Ltd. v. Mattel Canada Inc.

Spin Master Ltd. v. Mattel Canada Inc.

The motion was dismissed and the reply expert report admitted because the challenged material constituted a critique of the defendant's expert based on the defendant's own evidence (its costs), did not amount to impermissible case splitting or cause unfair prejudice, and any deficiencies or weight of the reply could be addressed through the defendant's expert evidence and cross-examination.

Citation
2019 FC 385
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Spin Master Ltd.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Mattel Canada Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Action With Claim for Accounting of Profits / Pre Trial Motion (motion to Exclude Reply Expert Report)
Outcome
Motion dismissed; leave granted to file the Harington Reply Report; costs awarded to Spin Master Ltd. in any event of the cause.
Legal Topics
Accounting of Profits, Expert Evidence, Reply Expert Report, Case Splitting, Allocation of Costs
Source Language
English
Patent Law Intellectual Property Evidence Civil Procedure Accounting of Profits Expert Evidence Reply Expert Report Case Splitting +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spin Master Ltd.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Mattel Canada Inc.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Action With Claim for Accounting of Profits / Pre Trial Motion (motion to Exclude Reply Expert Report)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff may file and rely on a reply expert report addressing deductions for discounts, samples and marketing costs
  2. 2 Whether admitting the reply expert report constitutes impermissible case splitting or causes prejudice to the defendant
  3. 3 Whether evidence respecting a defendant's own costs may properly be addressed in reply expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed and the reply expert report admitted because the challenged material constituted a critique of the defendant's expert based on the defendant's own evidence (its costs), did not amount to impermissible case splitting or cause unfair prejudice, and any deficiencies or weight of the reply could be addressed through the defendant's expert evidence and cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; leave granted to file the Harington Reply Report; costs awarded to Spin Master Ltd. in any event of the cause.

Orders

  • Spin Master Ltd. is granted leave to file the Harington Reply Report dated February 28, 2019.
  • Spin Master Ltd. shall have costs on this Motion in any event of the cause.