Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited

Costs awarded to Novopharm to be assessed on the upper end of Column IV of Tariff B; lump sum refused for lack of sufficient information; allow recovery for two first counsel and one second counsel for trial-related preparation and attendance and specified pre-trial items; allow expert fees only for experts who testified or who directly assisted trial preparation and cross-examination, disallow fees for non-lawyer overhead and litigation technology; increase the calculated award by 50% for serious settlement efforts though Rule 420 not satisfied, reduce the award by 10% for remedies-phase responsibility and 10% for inclusion of abandoned conspiracy counterclaim, producing a net increase...

Citation
2009 FC 1139
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc.; Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: Schering Corporation; Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Novopharm Limited
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Post Trial Costs Judgment (reasons for Judgment on Costs)
Outcome
Costs awarded in favour of Novopharm against Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH and Schering Corporation to be assessed in accordance with the reasons; lump sum refused.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Lump Sum Awards, Tariff B Scaling, Rule 420 Settlement Offers, Recovery of Expert and Counsel Fees, Bifurcation and Remedies Phase
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Costs Costs Assessment Lump Sum Awards Tariff B Scaling Rule 420 Settlement Offers +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Schering Corporation

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Novopharm Limited

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Post Trial Costs Judgment (reasons for Judgment on Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a lump sum costs award was appropriate
  2. 2 Appropriate scale under Tariff B and column selection
  3. 3 Recovery for multiple counsel and non-testifying experts

Ratio Decidendi

Costs awarded to Novopharm to be assessed on the upper end of Column IV of Tariff B; lump sum refused for lack of sufficient information; allow recovery for two first counsel and one second counsel for trial-related preparation and attendance and specified pre-trial items; allow expert fees only for experts who testified or who directly assisted trial preparation and cross-examination, disallow fees for non-lawyer overhead and litigation technology; increase the calculated award by 50% for serious settlement efforts though Rule 420 not satisfied, reduce the award by 10% for remedies-phase responsibility and 10% for inclusion of abandoned conspiracy counterclaim, producing a net increase...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in favour of Novopharm against Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH and Schering Corporation to be assessed in accordance with the reasons; lump sum refused.

Orders

  • Costs to be assessed on the upper end of Column IV of Tariff B
  • Refusal to award the lump sum of $5.14 million for lack of sufficient information