Canadian courts have, traditionally, not been inclined to award punitive damages in IP cases but this may be about to change. Marek Nitoslawski and David Turgeon investigate.
Punitive damages traditionally serve a dual purpose. They deter undesirable conduct while serving as a supplementary penalty to the defendant should compensatory damages be considered inadequate. In US patent infringement cases, the award of ‘triple damages’ is often granted specifically as a sanction against wilful infringement. Canadian courts, however, have traditionally been less inclined to award punitive damages in IP cases.
This now appears to be changing. Eurocopter v Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, a recent patent infringement case decided in the Federal Court of Canada, is the most recent case in a series confirming that Canadian courts are increasingly alive to the need for punitive damages to deter wilful and intentional infringement of IP rights.
Recent Canadian IP cases
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on firstname.lastname@example.org.
punitive damages, Eurocopter