The present motion relates to security for costs in the context
of an action for passing off and for infringement of two industrial
designs. The Prothonotary had ordered the Plaintiffs to pay
security for costs in the amount of $55,000 and the Defendants
appealed that order.
The Motions Judge granted the appeal, holding that the
Prothonotary had erred in concluding that Rule 420(2) of the
Federal Court Rules regarding taxable steps taken after a
written offer to settle, was not applicable. The Court held that
the Defendants had indeed made an offer to settle that met all of
the requirements of the rule and that the rule should be taken into
account when considering the amount of security for costs. Thus the
Court required the Plaintiffs to deposit an additional $20,000 as
the amount equivalent to doubling the costs from the date of
service of the offer to settle.
This is the redetermination of a matter before the PMPRB. The
Board previously issued a Decision and an Order in 2008. Teva
judicially reviewed that decision and the Court returned the matter to
The Board granted leave to the Board staff to file additional
evidence regarding the time period from the first Board decision
through 2010 (which was the time of the second Board panel being
constituted). The Board also gave Teva time to file additional
evidence relating to this time period. Teva applied for judicial
review of that decision and the Court dismissed the
Application for Judicial Review. A summary of that decision can be
The Board thus received new evidence and then heard oral
arguments on the matter. The Board considered the criteria
enumerated in the Patent Act and came to the conclusion
that although Copaxone syringe was the lowest priced medicine in
the market the "impact of the price increases that were
imposed upon the consumer exceeded the protection that Parliament
has provided"[para. 83]. The Board further held that there was
no evidentiary basis to justify ignoring that impact. The Board
held that Copaxone syringe was excessively priced and ordered the
repayment of $2.8 million dollars in excess revenues.
The Federal Court dismissed a motion by Apotex seeking particulars from Allergan's pleading relating to the prior art, inventive concept, promised utility and sound prediction of utility of the patents at issue.
Last year we saw the Canadian Courts release trademark decisions that granted a rare interlocutory injunction, issued jailed sentences for failure to comply with injunctive relief, grappled with trademark and internet issues...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).