Lubrizol Corp. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al., (1994) 84 F.T.R. 197 (TD)

• Judge: Cullen, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 12, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 84 F.T.R. 197 (TD)

Lubrizol Corp. v. Imperial Oil (1994), 84 F.T.R. 197 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

The Lubrizol Corporation and Lubrizol Canada Limited (plaintiffs) v. Imperial Oil Limited and its subdivision Paramins (defendant)

(T-577-87)

Indexed As: Lubrizol Corp. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Cullen, J.

October 4, 1994.

Summary:

Lubrizol owned a patent relating to additives for lubricating compositions. Lubrizol sued Imperial for patent infringement. Imperial denied infringing the patent and challenged the validity of the patent. Lubrizol applied for an interlocutory injunction preventing Imperial from manufacturing, selling, etc., the alleged infringing products pending trial.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, per Reed, J., in a decision reported 25 F.T.R. 33, allowed the application and granted the injunction.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported 39 F.T.R. 161, allowed Lubrizol's action. The court held that the patent was valid and infringed by Imperial. The court directed an accounting of profits and ordered Imperial to deliver all infringing substances to Lubrizol. Imperial appealed. Lubrizol cross-appealed the refusal of the trial judge to award exemplary damages.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 150 N.R. 207, allowed Imperial's appeal in part (re date of infringement and prejudgment interest). The court allowed Lubrizol's cross-appeal and ordered a continuance of the trial on the issue of exemplary damages for Imperial's alleged violation of the interlocutory injunction granted by Reed, J.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, following the continuance of the trial, awarded Lubrizol exemplary damages of $15,000,000, plus costs on a solicitor and client basis.

See also the next case in this volume.

Damage Awards - Topic 2030.7

Exemplary or punitive damages - Violation of injunction - Lubrizol owned a patent respecting additives for lubricating compositions - Lubrizol sued Imperial for patent infringement and obtained an interlocutory injunction pending trial preventing Imperial from manufacturing, selling, etc., the alleged infringing compositions - At trial Lubrizol sought exemplary damages, claiming that Imperial violated the injunction - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that Imperial callously disregarded the injunction by continuing to sell its product for eight months - The court awarded Lubrizol $15,000,000 exemplary damages, plus costs on a solicitor and client basis - The court held that prejudgment interest was not payable on exemplary damages (Federal Court Act, s. 36(4)) and declined to order postjudgment interest (s. 37).

Interest - Topic 3504

Statutory interest - On judgments - Refusal - Discretion - [See Damage Awards - Topic 2030.7 ].

Interest - Topic 5012

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - Punitive damages - [See Damage Awards - Topic 2030.7 ].

Practice - Topic 7454

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement - Improper, irresponsible or unconscionable conduct - Lubrizol owned a patent respecting additives for lubricating compositions - Lubrizol sued Imperial for patent infringement and obtained an interlocutory injunction pending trial preventing Imperial from manufacturing, selling, etc., the alleged infringing compositions - At trial Lubrizol sought exemplary damages, claiming that Imperial violated the injunction - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that Imperial callously disregarded the injunction by continuing to sell its product for eight months - The court awarded Lubrizol $15,000,000 exemplary damages, plus costs on a solicitor and client basis.

Cases Noticed:

Lubrizol Corp. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. (1992), 150 N.R. 207; 45 C.P.R.(3d) 449 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Lubrizol Corp. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. (1989), 25 F.T.R. 33; 22 C.P.R. (3d) 493 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 3].

Canada Metal Co. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1974), 4 O.R.(2d) 585 (H.C.), affd. (1975), 11 O.R.(2d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Domestic Converters Corp. v. Arctic S.S. Line, [1984] 1 F.C. 211; 46 N.R. 195 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 36(4), sect. 37 [para. 31].

Counsel:

Donald J. Wright, Q.C., and Peter Wells, for the plaintiff;

Jake F. Howard, Q.C., for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Ridout & Maybee, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Blake, Cassells & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendants.

This matter was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on September 12, 1994, before Cullen, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on October 4, 1994.