Expertise
-
Practice Areas:
- Bar Admissions:
- Education:
- University of Toronto (2018) JD
- Humber College (2012) Postgraduate Certificate in Clinical Research (Honours)
- University of Toronto (2010) HBSc (Human Behavioural Biology and Psychology with Distinction)
Details
- Bio
- Cases
- Associations
- Blog Posts
- News & Media
Alexis Vaughan (she/her)
is an associate at Lenczner Slaght.
Alexis’ practice encompasses a broad range of intellectual property litigation. She has assisted with matters before the Federal Court of Canada, including copyright, trademark, and patent infringement trials. Alexis has advised clients on various regulatory matters, including those related to drugs, medical devices, natural health products, tobacco products, and cannabis.
Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght, Alexis summered, articled, and practiced intellectual property law at an international law firm.
Alexis received her JD from the University of Toronto, where she volunteered at various legal clinics including the International Human Rights Program, Aboriginal Legal Services Toronto, and Downtown Legal Services – in the criminal division as well as the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. In her graduating year, Alexis received the Gordon Cressy Student Leadership Award in recognition of her outstanding extra-curricular contributions.
Prior to attending law school, Alexis completed her degree in Human Behavioural Biology at the University of Toronto and then worked at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre as a clinical data and regulatory coordinator. Her area of focus was phase I to III clinical trials in medical oncology and hematology.
-
Counsel to Andrómaco, a Mexican pharmaceutical company, a defendant in a dispute relating to the manufacture, approval, and distribution of a wound gel product in Mexico, the United States, and Europe. On a preliminary motion, successfully stayed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Gilead Sciences, Inc et al v JAMP Pharma Corporation
Counsel to Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Canada, Inc. in a NOC action in the Federal Court in respect of Canadian Patent No. 2,990,210.
-
Gilead Sciences, Inc et al v Natco Pharma (Canada) 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.
-
Gilead Sciences Inc, et al v JAMP Pharma Corporation
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.
-
Gilead Sciences, Inc et al v Apotex 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.
-
Gilead Sciences, Inc et al v Natco Pharma (Canada) 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.
-
Gilead Sciences, Inc et al v Apotex 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.
-
Counsel to the intervener Professor Ariel Katz in an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada addressing the interpretation of the “making available” provision of the Copyright Act, the role of the Copyright Board of Canada in determining legal questions, and the question of when copyrights trigger entitlements to royalties.
-
Canadian Bar Association
-
Ontario Bar Association
-
Intellectual Property Institute of Canada - Copyright Committee (2021-present)
-
The Advocates' Society
-
Federal Court Refuses to Schedule a Summary Trial If No Significant Savings of Cost or Time
As part of our series on summary proceedings in IP cases, we previously commented on the Federal Court of Appeal’s guidance on when and how a court should determine if summary trial is appropriate. In this post, we consider Associate Judge Horne’s recent decision in Toronto-Dominion Bank v Dyas (“TD Bank”), which deals with when a Case Management Judge should schedule (or refuse to schedule) a summary trial.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Inside or Out: Jurisdiction in the Context of Copyright
The application of the test for jurisdiction in the copyright context can sometimes be an exercise in gut feel. Luckily for litigants who prefer to make decisions based more on case law than feelings, the Divisional Court recently provided clarification on the application of the test for jurisdiction for statutory torts, like copyright infringement. The Ontario Divisional Court’s decision in Pourshian v Walt Disney Company (“Pourshian”), an appeal of a motion for an order to stay the plaintiff’s copyright infringement action on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, will hopefully take some of the guess work out of jurisdictional issues in the future.
-
Door Left Open for Use of Foreign Patent Prosecution History
Since its enactment in 2018, section 53.1 of the Patent Act has been the subject of much discussion. This provision allows courts tasked with construing the claims of a patent to consider communications previously made by the patentee to the Canadian Patent Office in the course of patent prosecution (known as the “prosecution history” or the “patent file wrapper”). Recently, the Federal Court has provided differing interpretations regarding the limitations of this section.
-
Lexpert's Top 10 Business Decisions of 2021/2022
In Lexpert's Top 10 Business Decisions of 2021/2022, Lenczner Slaght is featured for its involvement in Li v Barber and Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Entertainment Software Association. Monique Jilesen was further interviewed on our involvement in Li v Barber, where our team successfully obtained a precedent-setting Mareva order.
-
Alexis Vaughan Joins Lenczner Slaght
Canada’s leading litigation firm continues to grow its expert Intellectual Property Group with the addition of another exceptional lawyer, Alexis Vaughan.