Canada: Encouraging cost award trend emerging

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Canada: Encouraging cost award trend emerging

Enforcement of IP rights can sometimes culminate in litigation. In Canada, as in most jurisdictions, litigation related to IP is rarely inexpensive, with significant costs incurred for both counsel fees and for disbursements as varied as travel, scientific testing and the engagement of expert witnesses. Fortunately, in Canada successful parties are generally entitled to compensation for the costs of bringing their case. Indeed, most IP litigation in Canada occurs in the Federal Courts which have recently evinced an increasing willingness to ensure the adequacy of that compensation even in the most complex cases.

Canada's various courts usually provide some scheme for awarding costs. In the Federal Courts, cost awards include a component compensating for a portion of counsel fees and a component for reasonable and necessary disbursements. The fee component usually follows a tariff which sets out a range of set amounts for particular litigation activities and is intended to provide predictability while also accommodating varying degrees of case complexity. The fixed amounts are usually lower than actual costs and can be viewed as a compromise between compensating a successful party and not unduly burdening the other side.

The court is not, however, bound to apply the tariff and can choose to substitute a lump sum award proportionate to the counsel fees actually incurred by the prevailing party. Nonetheless, the tariff has typically been followed historically, with the complexity of cases such as those involving patents reflected in an award tending toward the higher end of the tariff.

Recently, however, a trend appears to be emerging where the Federal Court is shifting towards awarding lump sum costs that are higher than provided for under the tariff. The recent case of The Dow Chemical Company v Nova Chemical Corporation offers a prime example.

In that case, Dow alleged that the manufacture of certain polymers by Nova infringed a patent held by Dow. Nova counterclaimed alleging the patent was invalid. Ultimately, the court held that Dow's patent was both valid and infringed and that Dow was therefore entitled to remedies and an award of costs. In determining the latter, the Court considered the tariff but found that even its highest end would be "totally inadequate" in the circumstances of the case. The Court thus declined to follow the tariff and instead awarded Dow costs of C$6.5 million ($5 million), including a lump sum of C$2.9 million for legal fees and a further C$3.6 million for reasonable and necessary disbursements including certain in-house testing. The fee award was particularly significant and amounted to approximately 30% of Dow's actual counsel fees. The cost award was upheld on appeal.

This emerging trend is encouraging and may be an indication of a new willingness on the part of Canada's courts to provide adequate compensation for costs incurred by successful litigants in complex litigation such as the enforcement of IP rights.

Neil L Padgett


Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh55 Metcalfe Street Suite 900PO Box 2999 Station DOttawa ON  K1P 5Y6Tel: 613 232 2486Fax: 613 232 8440 ottawa@smart-biggar.cawww.smart-biggar.ca

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Deals between five more law firms and President Trump and an antitrust lawsuit against Amgen were also among the top talking points this week
US counsel explain how they win new cleantech IP business and how they’re navigating the industry’s challenges
Leaders at the IP firms, which have joined forces with backing from a PE investor, share their vision of building the number one pan-European IP practice
Firms will steer clients towards other ways of getting quicker examinations, but fear the ramifications of the USPTO’s decision
Melissa Haapala added that returning to client advocacy and the chance to work on patent litigation were reasons for returning to private practice
Michelle Clark, who has a generalist litigation background, plans to focus on IP disputes at Alston & Bird
Philips and Vivo have entered into a licensing agreement, putting an end to a five-year-old telecom SEP dispute in India
Stefan Müller discusses managing deadlines, the importance of reflection, and why IP is more than just a 'nice to have'
The three founders of the IP firm’s new US offering say they plan to offer a unique proposition in a market fixated by the billable hour
The opinion provides useful guidance when it comes to how courts might consider contributory infringement, DMCA claims, and other issues in AI copyright cases
Gift this article