Lawyers
Sana Halwani

About

Contact

Assistant Contact

T416-865-3733

M416-618-9333

Eshalwani@litigate.com

Add to Outlook Contacts

Follow me

Expertise

Practice Areas:
Bar Admissions:
- Ontario (2005)
Education:
- University of Toronto Faculty of Law (2004) JD (Dean's Honours List and Awarded Dean's Key)
- University of Sheffield, School of Law (2001) Master of Arts in Biotechnological Law and Ethics with Distinction; Special Commendation for Outstanding Performance
- Queen's University (2000) Bachelors of Science in Biochemistry (First Class Degree; Arts and Science Honour Roll)

Details

Bio
Cases
Associations
Blog Posts
News & Media
Publications & Presentations
Recognition

Sana Halwani (she/her)

is a partner at Lenczner Slaght.

"A tenacious litigator. Highly respected by the judiciary, she lets her legal, technical and advocacy skills speak for themselves." — IAM Patent 1000

Sana leads the firm's Intellectual Property group. In patent matters, she has experience with numerous industries, including pharmaceutical and biologics, information technology, telecommunications, gaming, oil and gas, and heavy industrial. In copyright, trademark, and trade secret matters, Sana has represented diverse clients including software companies, innovator and generic drug companies, and media companies.

Sana has represented clients at all levels of the Ontario and Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, and regularly provides strategic patent and regulatory advice. She has also acted pro hac vice in patent actions in the United States, and has extensive experience as part of international teams litigating large cross-border disputes.

As Chair of our Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee and co-founder of ReferToHer™, a groundbreaking program that helps keep women top of mind for referrals, Sana is a leading advocate for EDI at our firm and in the legal profession. She also plays a crucial role in shaping our firm’s future as Chair of our Innovation Hive™.

Sana is frequently invited to speak on topics in intellectual property, advocacy and diversity in the profession. Sana sits as the IP Law representative of the Federal Courts Rules Committee and as a member of the Federal Court IP Users Committee. Sana holds numerous volunteer leadership positions including Director and Secretary of the Writer’s Trust of Canada, Past President of the University of Toronto Alumni Association, and is a Past Director of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC) and co-Founder of it’s Women in IP Networking Group.

Prior to entering private practice, Sana clerked for Justice Rosalie Abella of the Supreme Court of Canada. Sana is a registered patent agent and trademark agent. She is also fluent in French.

Confidential Matter

Sana Halwani | March 1, 2024

Confidential Matter

Sana Halwani & Jim Lepore | March 1, 2024

Janssen Inc v The Ministry of Health and Attorney General of Canada

Counsel to Janssen Inc. in appeal of judicial review application to the Federal Court of Appeal addressing the interpretation and vires requirements for listing patents on the Patent Register under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations

Jordana Sanft & Sana Halwani | January 1, 2024

Janssen Inc v The Ministry of Health and Attorney General of Canada

Counsel to the applicant Janssen Inc. in two applications for judicial review to the Federal Court addressing the interpretation and vires requirements for listing patents on the Patent Register under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

Sana Halwani, Jordana Sanft, Allison Jandura & Christian Landeta | May 1, 2023

Puma SE v Caterpillar Inc

Co-counsel to Puma in an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada arising from Caterpillar’s opposition to Puma’s trademark application for PROCAT on the basis that it is confusing with Caterpillar’s registered design trademark (CAT & Triangle Design).

Sana Halwani & Jim Lepore | March 10, 2023

Confidential Matter

Counsel to a music collective in a contractual dispute.

Sana Halwani | March 9, 2023

James Caruk v Amazon.com Inc et al

Counsel to the Defendants, technology companies (Amazon, Apple, Fox/Tubi) and media production companies, in an action alleging, inter alia, copyright infringement, passing off and misappropriation of personality. This action was dismissed pre-discovery following service of the Defendants’ notice of motion to strike.

Sana Halwani, Jim Lepore & Drew Black | February 21, 2023

GlycoBioScience Inc v L’Oréal Canada Inc

Counsel to L’Oréal Canada Inc in an alleged patent infringement action.

Sana Halwani | January 1, 2023

Gilead Sciences, Inc et al v Pharmascience Inc

Counsel to Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Canada, Inc. in a NOC action in the Federal Court in respect of Canadian Patent No. 2,845,553.

Jordana Sanft, Sana Halwani, Cynthia L. Tape, Veronica C. Tsou, Alexis Vaughan & Amber Blair | October 17, 2022

Gilead Sciences, Inc et al v Pharmascience Inc

Counsel to Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Canada, Inc. in a NOC action in the Federal Court in respect of Canadian Patent Nos. 2,845,553 and 2,990,210.

Jordana Sanft, Sana Halwani, Cynthia L. Tape, Veronica C. Tsou, Martin Brandsma, Corey McClary, Alexis Vaughan, Devon R. Kapoor & Amber Blair | October 17, 2022

Rovi Guides and TiVo Solutions v Videotron

Counsel to TiVo Solutions and its subsidiary Rovi Guides in a patent infringement action, involving patents relating to interactive television program guides, DVR technology, and related technologies.

Cynthia L. Tape, Sana Halwani, Andrew Skodyn, Paul-Erik Veel, Jonathan Chen, Veronica C. Tsou, Kaitlin Soye, Laurel D. Hogg, Jacqueline Chan & Anna Hucman | August 1, 2018

Mock Appeal

Retained by appeal counsel to conduct a mock appeal for an infringement case involving a patented wellbore completion method.

Sana Halwani | July 29, 2018

Risk Management

Counsel to an integrated oil and gas client in developing a risk matrix for management of patent risk in development of new technologies.

Sana Halwani | June 29, 2018

Mass Engineering Design v Ingram Micro

Counsel to Ingram in a patent infringement action involving patents to monitor stands.

Sana Halwani | May 29, 2018

Flair Airlines v Gregor LLC

Counsel to Gregor LLC in a commercial and domain name dispute. Successfully resisted a motion for interlocutory injunction by having the action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Sana Halwani & Veronica C. Tsou | March 1, 2018

Robert Simon v Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions Holdings Corporation

Counsel to Toshiba in a software licensing dispute involving point-of-sale systems.

Sana Halwani, Peter Griffin & Patrick Healy | November 16, 2017

Valeant Canada LP v Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.

Counsel to Valeant in proceedings pursuant to the PM(NOC) Regulations relating to Wellbutrin XL (bupropion hydrochloride), a medication used to treat depression.

Andrew Skodyn, Sana Halwani, Melanie Baird & Laurel D. Hogg | July 7, 2017

The Estate of Vivian Maier v Stephen M. Bulger

Counsel to the Stephen Bulger Gallery in an action for copyright infringement in fine art photographs taken by the posthumously-discovered photographer Vivian Maier.

James S.S. Holtom, Andrew Skodyn, Sana Halwani, Margaret Robbins, Alexis Vaughan, Derek Hooper, Anna Hucman & Megan Bradt | June 29, 2017

Purdue Canada v Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc.

Counsel to Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc. against Purdue Pharma in an application under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, as well as a patent infringement action, involving the medicine XTAMPZA ER® (a tamper-resistant oxycodone product used in pain management).

Sana Halwani | June 28, 2017

Pharmascience Inc. v Valeant Canada LP

Counsel to Valeant in an action for damages under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations relating to Sublinox (zolpidem), a medication used to treat insomnia.

Andrew Skodyn, Sana Halwani, Melanie Baird & Veronica C. Tsou | June 13, 2017

Valeant Canada LP v Generic Partners Canada Inc.

Counsel to Valeant in proceedings pursuant to the PM(NOC) Regulations relating to Glumetza (metformin), a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes.

Andrew Skodyn, Melanie Baird, Sana Halwani & Naomi Metcalfe | June 9, 2017

Rosseau Asset Management v The Rosseau Group

Counsel to Rosseau Asset Management in a trade-mark infringement and passing off action.

Sana Halwani, Tom Curry, Laurel D. Hogg & Margaret Robbins | May 4, 2017

Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Inc v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Counsel to Subway in a $210 million defamation action against the CBC and Trent University relating to a Marketplace episode.

Sana Halwani, William C. McDowell, Paul-Erik Veel, Brendan F. Morrison, Kaitlin Soye, Anna Hucman & Megan Bradt | March 6, 2017

Venngo Inc v Concierge Connection Inc cob as Perkopolis

Counsel to Venngo in an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and a leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada of a decision relating to trademark infringement and passing off.

Andrew Skodyn, Melanie Baird, James S.S. Holtom & Sana Halwani | September 21, 2016

Xerox Corporation v Infinite Media Inc.

Counsel to Xerox in a software licensing dispute encompassing allegations of copyright infringement.

William C. McDowell, Dena N. Varah, Sana Halwani, Lars Brusven & J. Gwendolyn Ward | November 18, 2010

Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario v Transgenomic Inc

Counsel to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”) in an action seeking to invalidate several human gene patents preventing CHEO and other hospitals in Canada from offering diagnostic tests related to Long QT Syndrome. This was the first case in Canada to seek to address whether human genes are patentable subject matter. The matter resolved with a novel settlement, which granted CHEO (and other non-profits) a royalty-free license for diagnostic testing. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)

Sana Halwani | December 8, 2000

Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC

Counsel to Mylan in multiple related NOC proceedings and appeals relating to patents over CIALIS® (tadalafil); first generic challenge to CIALIS®. Mylan successfully justified allegations of invalidity and non-infringement in respect of a dosage patent and a formulation patent, which allowed Mylan to enter the market four years earlier than it would have otherwise. Lilly abandoned its appeal of the decision on the dosage patent, and the decision on the formulation patent was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)

Sana Halwani & Andrew Moeser | December 7, 2000

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC

Counsel to Mylan in a NOC proceeding relating to a composition of matter patent over COPAXONE® (glatiramer acetate – a random polypeptide); this was the first and only Canadian generic challenge to COPAXONE®. Teva and Mylan also litigated in the U.S., U.K., Netherlands and elsewhere over this blockbuster product. Canadian proceeding settled before hearing. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)

Sana Halwani & Andrew Moeser | December 6, 2000

In the matter of the Patent Act RSC 1985, c P-4, as amended and in the matter of Sandoz Canada Inc

Counsel to Board Staff at the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board, in matter and appeal involving questions of whether generic subsidiaries of innovator drug companies should be required to report pricing information to the Board. Decision appealed by Sandoz and upheld by FCA. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)

Sana Halwani | December 5, 2000

Safe Gaming System Inc v Atlantic Lottery Corporation

Counsel to Safe Gaming System in patent infringement litigation against the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation and its agents over a patent covering responsible gambling technology in Nova Scotia video lottery terminals. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)

Sana Halwani | December 4, 2000

Federal Courts Rules Committee - Designated by the Minister of Justice as the IP Law representative (of the five members of the bar on this statutory Committee) (2022-present)
Intellectual Property Institute of Canada - Fellow; Intervention Committee; Co-Chair of the Women in IP Networking Group (WING); Conference Committee; Member of the IPIC Council (2019-2021); Chair of the Litigation Committee (2018-2021)
University of Toronto Alumni Association - Board of Directors – President (2016-present)
Governing Council, University of Toronto - College of Electors (2015-2019)
University of Toronto - Academic Tribunal (student discipline matters), Co-Chair (2013-present)
University of Toronto Faculty of Law - Adjunct Professor, Trial Advocacy (2010-2019)
Advisory Committee on Prothonotary Appointments - Bar Representative (September 2017-2020)
Federal Court IP Users Committee - Member (2018-present)
Harold G. Fox Moot in Intellectual Property - Judge (2011-present)
Chiefs in Intellectual Property - Toronto Chapter
Writers' Trust of Canada - Board of Directors, Secretary (2020-present)
University of Toronto - Law Alumni Association (2010-2018)
Rouge Valley Health System - Research Ethics Board (2014-2017)
The Advocates' Society
Canadian Bar Association - Ontario
Ontario Bar Association
American Bar Association - Intellectual Property Law Section

Facebook Loses Privacy Faceoff at the FCA

The proceedings in Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v Facebook Inc arose from the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation into Facebook’s practice of sharing users’ personal information with third-party apps. At the Federal Court, Justice Manson dismissed the Commissioner’s application, finding that the Commissioner had not shown that Facebook failed to obtain meaningful consent from users to disclose their data, and had not shown that Facebook failed to adequately safeguard user data. In its latest decision, Justice Rennie of the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Commissioner’s appeal, concluding that Facebook indeed breached Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)’s requirement to obtain meaningful consent from users prior to data disclosure and its obligation to safeguard user data.

Sana Halwani & Natalie Workewych | October 17, 2024

Who Owns This Patent? The FCA Says It’s as Clear as Mud

In its recent decision, Mud Engineering Inc v Secure Energy Services Inc, a divided Federal Court of Appeal considered the effect of the parties’ failure to prove ownership in the context of a summary trial. Though both the majority and the dissenting opinions agreed that the Patent Act creates a rebuttable presumption of ownership, they differed on which party should bear the burden of proving ownership once that presumption has been successfully rebutted and on the effect of that rebuttal on the underlying infringement action.

Sana Halwani, Andrew Moeser & Alexis Vaughan | September 9, 2024

AI Artistry on Trial: Can Machines Hold Copyright?

The intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law is once again in the spotlight with the latest legal proceeding, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic v Ankit Sahni.

Sana Halwani, Jordana Sanft & Jim Lepore | July 18, 2024

AI Here, AI There, AI Everywhere: Practical Challenges Litigating in an AI World

In the final instalment of our AI in the Courtroom series, we explore practical challenges that may arise when litigating in an AI world, and within the current framework of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Practice Directions, and common law. While the law is not entirely unequipped to deal with these challenges, evolution in the Rules and common law will likely be necessary as AI becomes more commonly used by various participants in the litigation process.

Sana Halwani & Meghan Bridges | June 24, 2024

Password Protected! The Federal Court Revisits TPMs

Savvy content creators and copyright owners often use technical protection measures (also known as “TPMs”) to restrict what users can do with their works (often digital materials). The prohibition against circumventing TPMs is rooted in sections 41 and 41.1 of the Copyright Act, but their fit within the broader Copyright Act is the subject of ongoing debate.

Sana Halwani, Jim Lepore & Alexis Vaughan | June 13, 2024

AI Competence in the Courtroom: Four Things Judges Need to Understand Now About AI

As artificial intelligence continues to permeate every aspect of our lives, legal challenges involving AI will proliferate. Parts 1 to 3 in our series explored many of these potential questions. AI will create new legal problems and change the texture of old ones. As always, the judiciary, with the assistance of counsel, will assume a pivotal role in navigating this landscape.

Sana Halwani & Jonathan Chen | May 22, 2024

Innovation in Limbo: A Disappointing Turn in the Benjamin Moore Saga

In our last comment on non-patentable subject matter, we provided our thoughts on the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Canada (Attorney General) v Benjamin Moore & Co (the “Benjamin Moore Appeal”). As a top line, this decision was a loss for Canadian innovation. As we discussed in detail, the Federal Court of Appeal missed an opportunity to clarify the law of patentable subject matter, adopt the IPIC framework endorsed by Associate Chief Justice Gagné, and signal to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) that its examination practices were out of step with the law. Instead, the Federal Court of Appeal further complicated an already complex area of the law, which will increase the costs of innovators to register their technologies in Canada.

Sana Halwani & Jim Lepore | May 22, 2024

Exploring the Boundaries of Patent Protection: Federal Court of Appeal Holds That Marketing Is Not “Use” Under the Patent Act

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Steelhead v ARC upholds Justice Manson’s summary trial decision finding no infringement by ARC Resources of Steelhead’s 085 Patent. In summary, the FCA held that the marketing of an apparatus that – if built – would infringe the 085 Patent did not constitute “use” (or “exploiter” in the French version) under section 42 of the Patent Act, and therefore could not be infringement.

Sana Halwani, Jordana Sanft & Andrew Moeser | April 29, 2024

AI in the Courtroom: The Quest for Legal Precedents

The current landscape is inundated with narratives surrounding artificial intelligence and its intersection with the law. From the New York Time’s lawsuit launched against OpenAI in December 2023, to the BC lawyer reprimanded for citing fake AI-generated cases, to the lying Air Canada chatbot, the legal and mainstream media is full of stories of AI or people using AI running up against traditional legal doctrine and practice. Yet, amidst this surge of AI-related incidents, Canada finds itself grappling with more questions than answers.

Sana Halwani, Jordana Sanft & Jim Lepore | April 18, 2024

When Is a Gap Not a Gap? Court Maintains Procedural Differences Between Actions and Applications

In two decisions released on the same day, the Federal Court has confirmed that applications are summary procedures that exclude the right or ability to examine witnesses who have not sworn affidavits.

Sana Halwani | April 15, 2024

Pharma Patent Case Round-Up

If your 2024 has been too busy to keep up with caselaw, below we summarize and provide the key takeaways from pharmaceutical patent decisions that have been issued from the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal in the last two months.

Sana Halwani & Andrew Moeser | February 22, 2024

Benjamin Moore: An Opportunity Missed

It has been approximately six months since the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Canada (Attorney General) v Benjamin Moore & Co (the “Benjamin Moore Appeal”) was released, yet no practice direction has been issued from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) to address the decision, and there is no consistency in the way that computer-implemented inventions are being examined. As the patent bar awaits a decision on the leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada, we provide our thoughts on the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision, and the missed opportunity it was.

Sana Halwani & Jim Lepore | February 16, 2024

Inventor Examination Cannot Be Compelled by Proxy, and Other Practical Lessons

In the recently released decision Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd v Jamp Pharma Corporation, Jamp brought a motion seeking an order that would require Boehringer to make their employee inventors attend to be examined for discovery, failing which the order could be enforced against Boehringer themselves. Boehringer argued that the Rules do not contemplate such an order. Associate Judge Duchesne agreed.

Sana Halwani, Martin Brandsma & Natalie Workewych | July 18, 2023

Insights on the Independence of Expert Evidence

In the recently released decision dTechs EPM Ltd v British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and Awesense Wireless Inc, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) weighed in on the role and independence of experts in patent cases. In particular, the FCA provided guidance on (1) the role counsel may play in preparing expert reports; (2) an expert’s role in claim construction; and (3) the difference in the role of an expert where anticipation is alleged based on prior use versus prior publication.

May 31, 2023

Do I pay the same? Am I only streaming? Or is "making available" a separate, compensable claim?

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in SOCAN and Music Publishers of Canada v ESA, the latest instalment in a decade long battle about whether and how copyright owners should be compensated for making works available online (even if those works are not subsequently downloaded or streamed by a user).

Sana Halwani & Andrew Moeser | July 21, 2022

Don’t Make Me Say It a Fourth Time: Federal Court Weighs in (Again) on Patentable Subject Matter

Associate Chief Justice Gagné’s decision in Benjamin Moore & Co v Attorney General of Canada, 2022 FC 923 (“Benjamin Moore”) marks the second time that the Federal Court has had to weigh in to tell the Commissioner that it was not applying the correct test for patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Unlike past decisions (discussed below), the Court in Benjamin Moore, provided instruction on how the Commissioner ought to assess patentability of such inventions. As a top line, these instructions appear to level the playing field – reducing the artificially high standard that computer-implemented inventions face during patent examination.

Sana Halwani & Jim Lepore | June 28, 2022

Amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations Lose Some Teeth

The proposed amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations had the projected effect of lowering drug prices by billions of dollars over the next ten years. But by overreaching its jurisdiction, these amendments have lost some of its bite. The Quebec Court of Appeal determined several provisions to be ultra vires.

Jordana Sanft, Sana Halwani & Veronica C. Tsou | March 2, 2022

An Ode to Users’ Rights

In the last case heard before her retirement from the Supreme Court of Canada, and writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Rosalie Abella affirmed the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling that tariffs set by the Copyright Board are not mandatory (York University v Access Copyright). Justice Abella also rejected the FCA’s narrow approach to fair dealing and reiterated the nature of fair dealing as a user’s right, to be approached in the educational context from a student’s perspective and not exclusively from the institutional perspective.

Sana Halwani & Jacqueline Chan | August 5, 2021

The SCC Leave Project: Predictions for June 24, 2021

Here’s a look at the leave application decisions that the Supreme Court of Canada will be releasing on June 24, 2021.

Sana Halwani | June 22, 2021

Online Pirates Can Be Blocked

Copyright holders in Canada have scored a major victory in the fight against online piracy. The Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) in Teksavvy Solutions Inc v Bell Media Inc recently affirmed that site blocking injunctions may be ordered against Internet Service Providers (or ISPs), even as third parties to a copyright infringement action.

Sana Halwani & Jacqueline Chan | June 18, 2021

Don’t Sit Back During Summary Judgment: Federal Court of Appeal Weighs in on Summary Judgment for Patent Infringement Actions

The Federal Court of Appeal has historically held that summary judgment is usually not the preferred means of resolving patent infringement actions. These cases are inherently complex and technical, and usually involve expert evidence. In the Federal Court of Appeal’s view, a trial judge who has had the opportunity to hear all of the evidence live is best suited to resolve these disputes (see Suntec Environmental Inc v Trojan Technologies Inc).

Sana Halwani, Andrew Moeser & Jim Lepore | January 26, 2021

The Other Shoe Has Dropped: Summary Judgment in the Federal Court

Patent infringement actions are inherently complex and technical. They often involve complex scientific inquiries and expert evidence. The Federal Court has historically held that summary judgment—which does not include live evidence—is generally not the preferred means of resolving patent infringement actions. Instead, such determinations are best left to a trial judge who has had the opportunity to hear all of the evidence live (e.g., Suntec Environmental Inc v Trojan Technologies Inc).

Sana Halwani & Jim Lepore | November 25, 2020

The Federal Court of Appeal Clarifies the “Obvious to Try” Test

The Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) has clarified the extent of flexibility afforded when undertaking the “Obvious to Try” test in Amgen v Pfizer, 2020 FCA 188. Although it ultimately cautioned against a segmented approach, the FCA did not dismiss the possibility that experimental steps could be assessed individually in order to make conclusions about an experiment as a whole, particularly with respect to the Self-Evident and Extent of Effort factors of the test. Despite agreeing that the Federal Court (“FC”) could have been more expansive and all-embracing in its overall conclusion, the FCA did not deem the FC’s lack of analysis to have amounted to a palpable and overriding error.

Sana Halwani & Jacqueline Chan | November 16, 2020

Update to the Federal Court Case and Trial Management Guidelines

Last week, the Federal Court published a consolidated practice notice, updating and consolidating four other case and trial management guidelines for complex proceedings and proceedings under the PM(NOC) Regulations from 2015, 2016, and 2017 (available here, here, here, and here).

Sana Halwani & Veronica C. Tsou | November 9, 2020

Trial Advocacy is (Mostly) the Same Online: Lessons Learned from a Virtual Patent Trial

The COVID-19 pandemic has required courts to adapt to new ways of providing access to justice. We have first-hand experience with this new reality.

Sana Halwani & Paul-Erik Veel | June 30, 2020

The Times They Are a-Changin’: Summary Judgment in the Federal Court

Patent infringement actions are inherently complex and technical. They often involve complex scientific inquiries and expert evidence. The Federal Court has historically held that summary judgment—which does not include live evidence—is generally not the preferred means of resolving patent infringement actions. Instead, such determinations are best left to a trial judge who has had the opportunity to hear all of the evidence live (e.g. Suntec Environmental Inc v Trojan Technologies Inc).

Sana Halwani & Jim Lepore | June 9, 2020

Court of Appeal Affirms Jurisdiction to Hear Appeals in Writing

The old saying that "to a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is disquietingly relevant to traditional approaches to the dispensation of justice. For a long time, commentators have observed that the legal profession and the Courts lag behind much of the rest of society in leveraging digital resources to improve the quality, speed, and efficiency of litigation.

Scott Rollwagen, Sana Halwani & Paul-Erik Veel | May 15, 2020

The Federal Court of Appeal Takes No Prisoners

On October 15, 2020, both parties were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. We will continue to follow the developments of the appeal.

Sana Halwani & Jacqueline Chan | April 27, 2020

Full Steam Ahead: Opposition Won’t Derail a Patent Infringement Summary Trial

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the most painstaking procedure is not always the best procedure to resolve disputes – a culture shift was required to create timely and affordable access to the civil justice system (see Hryniak). This touchstone for access to justice is reflected in several courts’ rules of procedure, including the Federal Court of Canada.

Sana Halwani & Jim Lepore | April 9, 2020

Do courts have jurisdiction to order virtual hearings? Absolutely!

The initial reaction of most Canadian courts in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic was to shut down completely. This undoubtedly made sense from a public health perspective. However, as the Ontario Superior Court of Justice noted in its recent practice direction, courts have “constitutional responsibility to ensure access to justice remains available”. Consequently, courts have been taking gradual steps towards reopening and allowing certain cases to be heard.

Scott Rollwagen, Sana Halwani & Paul-Erik Veel | April 7, 2020

FCA Narrows Jurisdiction of Drug Price Regulator

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (“Board”) regulates the prices of patented medicines in Canada when a patent is found to “pertain” to a medicine. Since 1996, based on the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in ICN Pharmaceuticals Inc v Canada (Staff of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board) (“ICN”), the “pertains to” test could be satisfied on the basis of the “merest slender thread” of a relationship between the patent and the medicine.

Cynthia L. Tape & Sana Halwani | July 17, 2019

Procedural Skirmishes and Unintended Effects: The Proposed NOC Regulations

The proposed regulations amending the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations were released on July 14, 2017. These Proposed Regulations are a dramatic change from the existing Regulations, both substantively and procedurally.

Sana Halwani | July 19, 2017

The Death Knell of the Rocket Docket

For those of us who take an interest in American patent litigation, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (also known as the “Rocket Docket”) has been a fabled place where a third (or more) of US patent suits are heard, cases get to trial in two years or less, and patentees are king. It has also been the venue of choice for patent suits brought by non-practicing entities (NPEs...

Sana Halwani | May 25, 2017

Playing catch-up on copyright

In the latest issue of CBA National Magazine, Sana Halwani discusses why her clients, Canada's biggest news media companies, filed a joint lawsuit against OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, and what they are seeking from this action.

Sana Halwani | December 5, 2024

Top Canadian news outlets to sue OpenAI in major copyright case

Sana Halwani appeared on ABC Australia's Radio National Drive program to discuss her recent case representing Canada's leading news media compaines against OpenAI in the first lawsuit of its kind in Canada.

Sana Halwani | December 5, 2024

Open AI sued by five major Canadian media outlets

Sana Halwani was interviewed live by BNN Bloomberg on her recent case representing CBC, the Canadian Press, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and Postmedia in suing Open AI for breaching copyright and online terms of use by scraping large swaths of content from Canadian media to help develop its products, such as ChatGPT.

Sana Halwani | December 3, 2024

Canadian Media Giants Sue OpenAI Over Alleged Copyright Violations in ChatGPT Training

ALM's Law.com International reports on Canada's biggest media outlets suing U.S.-based artificial intelligence organization OpenAI of infringing their copyright by unlawfully scraping news content to train products like ChatGPT. Monique Jilesen and Sana Halwani are mentioned as leading the team represending the news organizations.

Sana Halwani & Monique Jilesen | December 2, 2024

Media companies’ lawsuit against OpenAI latest in growing number of challenges to AI data scraping

Canadian Lawyer spoke to Sana Halwani about the recently launched legal action on the Commercial List by Canada's leading news media companies against OpenAI, the first of its kind in Canada.

Sana Halwani | December 2, 2024

Canadian media companies launch legal action against OpenAI

In this Financial Post article, Sana Halwani, lead counsel for Torstar, The Canadian Press, The Globe and Mail, CBC/Radio-Canada and Postmedia Network Inc, comments on why Canada's leading news media copmanies have launched a legal action against OpenAI.

Sana Halwani | November 29, 2024

Canadian news organizations, including CBC and The Globe, suing ChatGPT maker for alleged copyright infringement

Featured on the front page of The Globe & Mail's Report on Business section, Sana Halwani was interviewed as lead counsel representing Canada's leading news media companies in their recently launched legal action against OpenAI for copyright infringement and breach of contract.

Sana Halwani | November 29, 2024

Major Canadian News Outlets Sue OpenAI inNew Copyright Case

New York Times reported on a coalition of Canada's biggest media companies, represented by Lenczner Slaght, seeking billions of dollars in compensation for illegally using their content in the first case of its kind in the country. Sana Halwani is lead counsel for the news organizations and comments on the strength of their case.

Sana Halwani | November 29, 2024

Lenczner Slaght Lawyers Recognized as Canada’s Leading Litigators

Following an in-depth peer review process across the legal profession, 21 Lenczner Slaght lawyers have been recognized in the 2024 Lexpert Special Edition: Canada’s Leading Litigation Lawyers guide for their extensive courtroom experience and subject-matter expertise.

November 21, 2024

Lenczner Slaght Recognized as a Leading Litigation Firm in Legal 500 Canada

Canada’s leading litigation firm has reaffirmed its Tier 1 ranking in Dispute Resolution in Legal 500 Canada.

November 12, 2024

Actions, Applications and Hybrid Proceedings: Considerations and Strategies for IP Lawyers

Sana Halwani was invited to speak as a panelist at the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada program titled, Actions, Applications and Hybrid Proceedings: Considerations and Strategies for IP Lawyers. Sana discussed different ways to initiate a proceeding, as well as considerations for choosing whether to initiate a proceeding by way of application, action, or simplified action, including hybrid proceedings.

Sana Halwani | December 5, 2024

IPIC 2024 Conference

Sana Halwani was invited to share her expertise at the IPIC 2024 Conference. Sana was a panelist on From Courtroom to Practice: Analyzing Top IP Cases of the Year, where she discussed the most significant patent law rulings of the year and provided insights into how they’re shaping the future of IP law and practice.

Sana Halwani | September 27, 2024

Sana Halwani shared her expertise on a Copyright Master Class course, hosted by McGill University in partnership with the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC). In the session titled, Copyright Litigation Inside and Out: Legal & Business Views, Sana discussed the nuts and bolts of prosecuting or defending a copyright case in Canada.

Sana Halwani | July 24, 2024

45th Annual Intensive Trial Advocacy Workshop (ITAW)

Risa Kirshblum, Sana Halwani, and Jonathan Chen participated as instructors at the 45th Annual Intensive Trial Advocacy Workshop (ITAW), hosted by Osgoode Professional Development. This program gathered over 100 experts in advocacy skills training and guest speakers who are active members of the Bench and Bar. Attendees had the opportunity to develop and refine their advocacy skills.

Risa M. Kirshblum, Sana Halwani & Jonathan Chen | July 8, 2024

Expert Witnesses and Persuasive Testimony in Technology Cases: Leveraging Technical Evidence

Sana Halwani was invited to present at the Canadian Bar Association program titled, Expert Witnesses and Persuasive Testimony in Technology Cases: Leveraging Technical Evidence. Sana discussed the critical role of expert witnesses in technology litigation, providing best practices for selecting, preparing, and presenting them effectively. She also covered strategies for handling cross-examination and engaged in interactive discussions on recent cases involving technological testimony.

Sana Halwani | May 15, 2024

Walking the Talk: EDI Accountability in Legal Organizations

Sana Halwani was invited to speak as a panelist on the OBA's program titled, Walking the Talk: EDI Accountability in Legal Organizations. The panel discussed EDI policy implementation, how to measure the impact of EDI in an organization, and practical tips for ensuring accountability and create meaningful change.

Sana Halwani | November 24, 2023

Carl Mitchell Community Impact Award Event Honouring R. Douglas Elliott (JD 1982)

Sana Halwani, Past President of the University of Toronto Alumni Association, led a fireside chat with honouree, R. Douglas Elliott, to discuss his decades of advocacy and community work, including landmark constitutional cases that made national headlines and changed the lives of thousands of Canadians.

Sana Halwani | November 22, 2023

Sana Halwani shared her expertise at the joint Intellectual Property Institute of Canada and McGill University Summer IP Course. Sana presented Copyright in an Educational Setting.

Sana Halwani | July 26, 2023

44th Annual Intensive Trial Advocacy Workshop

Lawrence E. Thacker, Risa M. Kirshblum. Sana Halwani, and Jonathan Chen were invited to share their expertise at Osgoode Professional Development's 44th Annual Intensive Trial Advocacy Workshop.

July 10, 2023

The Art of Settlement

Sana Halwani was invited to share her expertise at The Advocates' Society's program titled The Art of Settlement. Sana will present on Best Practices for Drafting Settlement Agreements.

Sana Halwani | May 26, 2023

Chambers Global (2019-2024)

Intellectual Property: Litigation (Canada)

Chambers Canada (2019-2025)

Intellectual Property: Litigation (Nationwide – Canada)

IAM Patent 1000 (2016-2024)

Patent Litigation: Recommended Individual (Gold)

Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory (2018-2024)

Intellectual Property (Most Frequently Recommended), Litigation - Intellectual Property (Most Frequently Recommended), Life Sciences & Health (Repeatedly Recommended), Litigation - Corporate Commercial (Repeatedly Recommended)

Lexpert®/American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada (2020-2024)

Intellectual Property; Intellectual Property Litigation

Lexpert Special Edition: Canada's Leading Litigation Lawyers (2018-2024)

Lexpert Special Edition: Canada's Leading Technology & Health Sciences Lawyers (2022-2024)

Lexpert Special Edition: Canada's Leading Health Sciences Lawyers (2021)

Lexpert Rising Stars (2018)

Leading Lawyers Under 40

Managing Intellectual Property: IP STARS (2017-2024)

Patent Star - Canada, Trademark Star - Canada, Top 250 Women in IP

Best Lawyers in Canada (2023)

Toronto "Lawyer of the Year" in Intellectual Property Law

Best Lawyers in Canada (2018-2025)

Biotechnology and Life Sciences Practice, Corporate & Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property

The Legal 500 Canada (2018-2024)

Intellectual Property (Leading Partner)

LMG Life Sciences (2023-2024)

Intellectual Property

Who's Who Legal: Canada (2018-2023)

IP – Patents (Global Leader), Life Sciences – Patent Litigation (Global Leader), Patents (National Leader), Life Sciences (National Leader)

Benchmark Litigation (2018)

Top 25 Women in Canadian Litigation

Benchmark Canada (2017-2024)

Litigation Star – Intellectual Property; Top 100 Women in Litigation

Benchmark Litigation (2017-2019)

Under 40 Hotlist

LMG Life Sciences (2016)

Canadian Impact Case of the Year (CHEO case at previous firm)

University of Toronto (2012)

Arbor Award (alumni volunteerism)