Eurocopter (Société par Actions Simplifiée) v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

This decision concerned the costs to be awarded after the infringement action, which was decided in January of this year. Our summary of the infringement action can be found here. In that action, Eurocopter was successful in its suit for infringement of the Legacy gear while Bell was successful in its defence of infringement against its Production gear. Bell's counterclaim for invalidity was allowed in part; however, had no effect on claim 15 which was found to be valid and infringed by the Legacy gear.

The Court held that Eurocopter was more successful than Bell in the case and, thus, should be entitled to part of its costs. The Court considered arguments that more claims were found invalid than valid; however, dismissed this. Furthermore, the Court held there was no practical advantage in the invalidation of some of the patent claims as one claim was found valid and infringed.

The Court considered the factors relevant to the determining costs according to the Federal Courts Rules. The Court held that Bell is not entitled to any costs and that Eurocopter was entitled to its costs and disbursements; however, reduced those by fifty percent.