Wellcome Foundation Ltd. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (No. 2), (1992) 52 F.T.R. 241 (TD)

• Judge: MacKay, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 52 F.T.R. 241 (TD)

Wellcome Fdn. v. Apotex (1992), 52 F.T.R. 241 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

The Wellcome Foundation Limited and Burroughs Wellcome Inc. (plaintiffs) v. Apotex Inc. (defendant)

(T-80-83)

Indexed As: Wellcome Foundation Ltd. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (No. 2)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

MacKay, J.

January 30, 1992.

Summary:

The plaintiffs were the owner and licensee of patents relating to "intermediates, pro­cesses for their production, and the process for production of a pharmaceutical com­pound, trimethoprim (TMP), using those intermediates". The plaintiffs commenced a patent infringement action against the defen­dant, alleging that the defendant sold in Canada certain pharmaceutical compounds using imported TMP which contained the intermediates covered by their patents and which were manufactured using their pat­ented processes.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported 47 F.T.R. 81, allowed the action. The plaintiffs applied for an order with directions to the taxing officer to authorize increases for services rendered or disbursements incurred over the amounts specified, or for services not specifically mentioned, in Tariff B, concerning party and party costs, which would otherwise be appli­cable under rule 346(1).

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, allowed the application in part.

For a related case see the next case in this volume.

Practice - Topic 7110

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - The partially successful plaintiffs in a complex patent infringement action were awarded 75% of their costs to be taxed on a party and party basis - The plaintiffs applied for an order with directions to the taxing officer for increases over the Tariff B amounts and for services rendered or disbursements incurred that were not included in the Tariff - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in allowing the application in part, stated that parties should not expect to recover all their costs under Tariff B - Exorbitant increases over Tariff items should not be allowed, because that would interfere with the sums intended to be allowed under the Rules.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian National Railway Co. et al. v. Norsk Pacific Steamship Co. Ltd. et al. (1990), 113 N.R. 4 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

A-LOK Products Corp. v. Press-Seal Gasket Corp. et al. (1988), 25 F.T.R. 1; 21 C.I.P.R. 195 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Diversified Products Corp. and Brown Fitzpatrick Lloyd Patent Ltd. v. Tye-Sil Corp. Ltd. (1988), 22 F.T.R. 241; 23 C.P.R.(3d) 313 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Stiga Aktiebolag and Noma Outdoor Prod­ucts Inc. v. S.L.M. Canada Inc. (1991), 43 F.T.R. 221; 34 C.P.R.(3d) 258 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Reliance Electric Industrial Co. et al. v. Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. (1990), 29 F.T.R. 46; 30 C.P.R.(3d) 469 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

A/S Ornen v. Ship Duteous et al. (1986), 4 F.T.R. 122 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Diversified Products Corp. and Brown Fitz­patrick Lloyd Patent Ltd. v. Tye-Sil Corp. Ltd. (1990), 30 C.P.R.(3d) 318 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Diversified Products Corp. and Brown Fitzpatrick Lloyd Patent Ltd. v. Tye-Sil Corp. Ltd. (1990), 38 F.T.R. 251; 32 C.P.R.(3d) 385 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Valmet-Dominion Inc. v. Beloit Corp. (1990), 40 F.T.R. 122 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 344(1), rule 344(2) [para. 4]; rule 344(6) [para. 1]; rule 344(6.1) [para. 4]; rule 344(7), rule 346(1) [para. 1]; rule 346(1.1), rule 346(1.2), rule 346(2) [para. 4]; rule 500 [para. 3].

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 39(2) [para. 9]; sect. 41(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Brian Edmonds, for the plaintiffs;

Harry Radomski, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiffs;

Malcolm Johnson & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant.

This application was heard on January 20, 1992, at Toronto, Ontario, before MacKay, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judg­ment on January 30, 1992.