PRACTICE |
Costs |
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Cobra Fixations Cie/Cobra Anchors Co.
A-522-02
2003 FCA 358, Létourneau J.A.
30/9/03
5 pp.
Illinois Tool Works Inc. (appellants) appeals Trial Division decision ((2002), 221 F.T.R. 161) that respondent's products (anchors identified by trade-marks "WallDriller" and "Picture Hook"), did not infringe appellants' patent and that each party to bear its own costs--These products did not possess two of features essential elements of invention claimed by appellants, namely "a drilling end including means for allowing passage of elongated fastener through and beyond said drilling end" and "for causing said drilling end to deflect upon advancement of said fastener through said body"--Cogent evidence supporting such finding--Respondent's cross-appeal attacking validity of patent cannot succeed--Trial Judge made no error in holding prior art references cited at trial did not render invention obvious or demonstrate lack of inventiveness-- Respondent's cross-appeal relating to allocation of costs in Trial Division should be allowed--Trial Judge did not properly exercise discretion in assessing costs--Trial Judge's conclusion has roots in misapprehension of facts and, as result, of legal principles applicable in present case--At trial, respondent's defence did not have to be accepted in entirety for lawsuit to be dismissed--Defence needed to succeed on only one of its two components in order to achieve result, and it did: Trial Judge found respondent's products do not infringe plaintiffs' patent--Therefore, plaintiffs' action dismissed-- No costs awarded on basis of "divided success": plaintiff entitled to declaration patent valid; defendant entitled to declaration its products did not infringe plaintiff's patent--On facts of this case, Court could not understand why dismissal of plaintiffs' lawsuit could amount to, result in, or become divided success--Trial Judge did not properly take into consideration end result of proceedings before him, as required by Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 400(3)(a)--In conclusion, respondent entitled to costs as winning party and no valid reasons given to refuse to award costs to winning party in these circumstances--Appeal dismissed with costs and respondent's cross-appeal allowed to extent of vacating Trial Judge's decision regarding costs--On all other aspects, cross-appeal dismissed--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 400(3)(a).