Pollard Banknote Limited v. Babn Technologies Corp.

Pollard Banknote Limited v. Babn Technologies Corp.

Costs awarded to Pollard but not on the lump‑sum/actual‑cost basis requested; instead, costs were assessed by elevating the fees portion 50% above the top of Column IV of Tariff B because SG's conduct (frivolous standard‑of‑review argument, mishandling and non‑correction of expert Finnerty's testimony, and inconsistent claim construction during prosecution vs trial) warranted substantial uplift; junior counsel allowances and reasonable disbursements permitted; $2,500 awarded for costs submissions; unresolved quantum to be assessed under Rule 405 if parties cannot agree.

Citation
2016 FC 1193
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): POLLARD BANKNOTE LIMITED; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): BABN TECHNOLOGIES CORP.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): SCIENTIFIC GAMES PRODUCTS (CANADA) ULC
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Impeachment (invalidity) Action / Costs Assessment After Trial
Outcome
Costs awarded to Pollard at an elevated level: fees set at 50% above the top of Column IV of Tariff B; allowance for one junior counsel at half senior rate where two counsel participated; reasonable disbursements permitted; $2,500 awarded for costs submissions; residual quantum to be fixed by assessment officer...
Legal Topics
Patent Invalidity, Costs Award, Expert Evidence, Claim Construction, Standard of Review, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Costs Patent Invalidity Costs Award Expert Evidence Claim Construction Standard of Review +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

POLLARD BANKNOTE LIMITED

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

BABN TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

SCIENTIFIC GAMES PRODUCTS (CANADA) ULC

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patent Impeachment (invalidity) Action / Costs Assessment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to award costs based on Tariff B or a lump sum tied to actual legal fees
  2. 2 Whether costs should be elevated above Tariff B due to respondent's conduct
  3. 3 Whether specific conduct (expert evidence issues, standard of review argument, inconsistent claim construction, non‑compliance with rules) justifies enhanced costs

Ratio Decidendi

Costs awarded to Pollard but not on the lump‑sum/actual‑cost basis requested; instead, costs were assessed by elevating the fees portion 50% above the top of Column IV of Tariff B because SG's conduct (frivolous standard‑of‑review argument, mishandling and non‑correction of expert Finnerty's testimony, and inconsistent claim construction during prosecution vs trial) warranted substantial uplift; junior counsel allowances and reasonable disbursements permitted; $2,500 awarded for costs submissions; unresolved quantum to be assessed under Rule 405 if parties cannot agree.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Pollard at an elevated level: fees set at 50% above the top of Column IV of Tariff B; allowance for one junior counsel at half senior rate where two counsel participated; reasonable disbursements permitted; $2,500 awarded for costs submissions; residual quantum to be fixed by assessment officer...

Orders

  • Costs to Pollard to be calculated at an elevated level of 50% above the top of Column IV of Tariff B.
  • Pollard entitled to claim preparation and attendance by one junior counsel (at half the senior counsel amount) for steps where two counsel were involved: examinations for discovery, trial, and any pre‑trial hearings for which costs were awarded.