Federal Court of Appeal upholds Federal Court’s summary trial finding of patent invalidity
Background The Federal Court of Appeal has rarely upheld or granted a finding of invalidity in the context of a summary trial;...Read More
It’s a fact: Methotrexate patent invalid for obviousness
In Medexus v Accord, the Federal Court concluded that a patent covering the use of methotrexate to treat inflammatory autoimmune diseases was...Read More
Rejected allegations on insufficiency: The importance of clarity, specificity, and timeliness in amending pleadings
ProSlide Technology Inc. v WhiteWater West Industries Ltd. is an appeal of an Associate Judge’s Order denying WhiteWater’s motion to amend its...Read More
Assessing TM Confusion: Patients Matter
Novartis v. Biogen involves claims of trademark infringement, passing off and depreciation of goodwill and raises several interesting issues. The Applicants, Novartis...Read More
Validity of maintenance dose patent maintained
The Federal Court of Appeal provided insight into what constitutes an unpatentable method of medical treatment in Janssen v Pharmascience, the latest...Read More
Abuse of process remains alive under the Regulations
The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Janssen v. Apotex (here) harkens back to its 2007 decision Sanofi-Aventis v Novopharm (here) and...Read More
A tale of two DRAGONAS
This case involves two related companies that had been using the same trademark based on an informal understanding. After many years of...Read More
Complex proceedings yield elevated lump sum costs for Kobold
Justice McVeigh recently awarded Kobold Corporation and Promac Industries Ltd. elevated lump sum costs in what may have been “the most complex...Read More
Breaking invention chains: non-final unity objections need not “force” a divisional
In NCS v Kobold, the Federal Court explained the circumstances in which a double patenting argument could apply in the context of...Read More
An inventive concept dies and becomes the “spirit of the invention”
In NCS v Kobold, the Court explained that the inventive concept of a patent is not the “spirit of the invention” as...Read More
FCA Confirms Obviousness of Lilly’s Tadalafil Patent
In Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2020 FC 816, Justice St-Louis held that the asserted claims of Lilly’s Patent...Read More
Enough (evidence) is enough: Redactions to invoices no barrier to lump sum costs award
In Eli Lilly v Apotex, Justice St-Louis awarded Apotex its costs in a patent action involving the drug tadalafil and three patents...Read More
Do it yourself: Court clarifies obligations of party that breaches protective order and implied undertaking
In Molo v Chanel, Associate Justice Tabib clarified what a party is required to do when it has breached a protective order....Read More
Relief from the implied undertaking required before varying a confidentiality order
The Federal Court found it was inappropriate to vary the Protective and Confidentiality Order in the original action brought by Janssen against...Read More
One-sided assessment of prejudice undermines decision regarding amendment of trademark Statement of Opposition
In Anheuser Busch LLC v H.O.W. Medical Solutions Ltd., 2022 FC 842, Justice Walker set aside a decision by the Trademarks Opposition...Read More
Suffice it to Say, Pending Claims Are Irrelevant for Sufficiency
The Federal Court of Appeal clarified in Pharmascience v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2022 FCA 142, that the specification of the issued patent, not...Read More
Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Fampridine Trial Decision
Biogen appealed a decision of the Federal Court dismissing its patent infringement actions on the basis that all of the asserted claims...Read More
Akebia’s “Zombie Motion” is Put to Rest
In FibroGen, Inc. v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., Justice Rennie allowed FibroGen’s appeal from an order requiring that FibroGen file certain fact witness...Read More
Janssen’s stranglehold strengthens: Evidence important in indirect infringement
Janssen scored another victory in relation to Canadian Patent No. 2,659,770 in Janssen v Apotex. Janssen sought to prevent Apotex from selling...Read More
Burden on summary trial can shift, and both parties come up short on ownership
In Mud Engineering Inc. v Secure Energy (Drilling Services) Inc., 2022 FC 943, Justice St-Louis dismissed a motion for summary trial and...Read More
For the Defendants’ Eyes Only: Court Permits Filing of Confidential Statement of Claim
In Bayer vs. BGP, Justice Pentney of the Federal Court permitted the filing of a confidential Statement of Claim. Bayer markets aflibercept...Read More
Janssen tightens its grip on treatment for vasoconstrictive diseases
In Janssen v Sandoz, the Federal Court held that Canadian Patent No. 2,659,770 was valid and would be infringed by Sandoz’s proposed...Read More
Lump Sum Costs? Ça “Dépens”!
Justice Grammond awarded Vidéotron Ltée and Groupe TVA inc. costs according to the Tariff after their success in 2022 CF 256, finding...Read More
Federal Court’s Confusion Analysis Aligns with TMOB Despite New Evidence on Appeal
Osstemimplant applied to register the trademark MAGICALIGN for use in association with orthodontic goods. Align opposed the registration, asserting that MAGICALIGN was...Read More
Federal Court clarifies test for Protective Orders with Counsel’s Eyes Only Provisions
In Del Ridge Homes Inc. v Ledgemark Homes Inc., 2022 FC 566 the Federal Court upheld Prothonotary Milczynski’s decision to dismiss Ledgemark...Read More