Federal Court found willful infringement of patent held by French air-conditioning company
After upholding the Federal Court’s decision that an Ontario corporation had infringed the patent held by a French company, the Federal Court of Appeal assessed the successful party’s bill of costs and allowed a total amount of $8,787.35.
The appellant operated Skotidakis, a family-run business of milk and cheese products in Ontario.
The respondent, Fromfroid S.A., was a French company that manufactured and installed air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment for the agri-food industry. Fromfroid held a patent for a rapid cooling ventilation system for food products.
Beginning in 2014, Skotidakis planned to acquire a system to cool its dairy products faster. Skotidakis reached out to Geosaf Inc., Fromfroid’s Canadian commercial agent.
Through Geosaf, Fromfroid loaned a cooling cell to Skotidakis for a six-week trial period, then offered to construct 24 cells of the ventilation system. Skotidakis did not accept any proposals during the discussion period.
The patent expired on July 30, 2018. On Oct. 26, 2018, a Geosaf representative discovered 24 cooling cells that strongly resembled Fromfroid’s in Skotidakis’ facilities.
Skotidakis said Frimasco Inc., a construction company focusing on coolers, built the cooling cells within three months of the patent’s expiry. Disbelieving this claim, Fromfroid alleged patent infringement against Skotidakis and Frimasco before the Federal Court.
On July 6, 2023, the Federal Court ruled that Skotidakis and Frimasco willfully infringed the patent by building the cooling cells before the patent’s expiry and engaged in highly reprehensible behaviour by trying to mislead the court about the cooling cells’ true manufacturing date.
The Federal Court ordered Skotidakis and Frimasco to pay Fromfroid compensatory damages of $149,270, representing what would have been Fromfroid’s net profit if Skotidakis had accepted the final proposal.
The Federal Court also awarded Fromfroid punitive damages of $200,000 from Skotidakis and $50,000 from Frimasco. The damages awarded included interest.
On Aug. 31, 2023, the Federal Court awarded Fromfroid trial costs of $127,000. Skotidakis appealed against both Federal Court decisions.
On Jan. 18, 2024, Fromfroid’s counsel sent Skotidakis a letter with an offer attempting to settle the dispute. However, the appeal proceeded.
Appeal denied
On Aug. 25, 2025, in 1048547 Ontario Inc. v. Fromfroid S.A., 2025 FCA 151, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Skotidakis’ appeal, with costs.
The appeal court found no overriding and palpable error in the Federal Court’s evaluation of the evidence, its inferences from the evidence, and its assessment of punitive damages.
On Sept. 18, 2025, Fromfroid filed a bill of costs under s. 406(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, to seek an assessment of its appeal costs.
Fromfroid and Skotidakis agreed that the appeal court should assess the bill of costs pursuant to column III of the table to Tariff B under r. 407. However, the parties disputed the level of costs that the appeal court should apply within that range.
Cost assessment
Last June 1, in 1048547 Ontario Inc. v. Fromfroid S.A., 2026 FCA 108, the Federal Court of Appeal assessed Fromfroid’s bill of costs and issued an assessment certificate. The appeal court allowed a total sum of $8,787.35, including taxes.
In reaching this amount, the appeal court allowed a total of 45 units, amounting to $8,100, for assessable services. These units corresponded to the following items:
- the preparation of the appeal book
- the memorandum of fact and law
- the requisition for hearing
- the assessment of costs
- the first counsel’s fee on the appeal hearing
The assessment disallowed these items: the counsel fee on a motion for a confidentiality order and the second counsel fee on the appeal hearing.
Regarding disbursements, the appeal court allowed the additional amounts of $229.50 for goods and services tax at five percent and $457.85 for provincial sales tax at 9.975 percent.
The appeal court considered it appropriate to apply a level of costs in the upper end of column III because Fromfroid successfully defended against the appeal and because the appeal issues were complex and important.
The appeal court noted that Skotidakis raised five issues on appeal, which compelled Fromfroid to prepare oral arguments on all five issues at the appeal hearing and to draft written representations on four issues.
Given Fromfroid’s written settlement offer, the appeal court allowed the doubling of costs of assessable services rendered from Jan. 18, 2024, to Aug. 25, 2025, under r. 420(2)(b).
