Expertise
-
Practice Areas:
- Bar Admissions:
- Education:
- University of Ottawa (2012) JD
- Western University (2009) MSc (Molecular Biology/Genetics)
- Western University (2007) HBSc (Genetics Specialization)
Details
- Bio
- Cases
- Associations
- Blog Posts
- News & Media
- Recognition
Martin Brandsma
is counsel at Lenczner Slaght.
Martin’s practice focuses on all aspects of intellectual property litigation including patents, copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and industrial designs. He has extensive experience representing a broad range of clients including those in biotechnology, life sciences, consumer goods, telecommunications, sound recording and collective rights management. He also regularly acts in pharmaceutical patent cases under Canada’s Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, representing some of the world’s leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal.
Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght, Martin practiced in the intellectual property litigation groups of leading Canadian law firms.
Prior to attending law school, Martin obtained a M.Sc. in Molecular Biology/Genetics from Western University. His research focused on the design, production and optimization of novel recombinant therapeutic biologics.
-
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. 2,990,210.
-
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. 2,845,553.
-
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 No. 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.
-
UPL NA Inc v Agracity Crop & Nutrition Ltd
Counsel to UPL NA Inc. in a patent infringement action in the Federal Court of Canada in respect of Canadian Patent No. 2,346,021.
-
Deeproot Green Infrastructure, LLC v Greenblue Urban North America Inc
Counsel to Greenblue Urban North America Inc. in a proceeding for contempt following a patent infringement action in the Federal Court of Canada.
-
Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co v Teva Canada Limited
Counsel for Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co in a NOC action in the Federal Court of Canada in respect of Canadian Patent Nos. 2,250,840 and 2,317,736.
-
Counsel to Gentec in a summary trial for trademark infringement and passing off in the Federal Court of Canada.
-
Intellectual Property Institute of Canada - Copyright Committee
-
Ontario Bar Association
-
The Advocates’ Society
-
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.
-
Clarity on the Test for Inducing Infringement in Canadian Patent Law
Indirect infringement or “inducement” often arises in pharmaceutical patent infringement cases where a defendant generic manufacturer may not ultimately “use” the drug in question (i.e., directly infringe). Since 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal’s (“FCA”) Corlac Inc v Weatherford Canada Inc decision has frequently been cited as the leading authority for the tripartate test for inducement. In 2020, the Federal Court suggested that Corlac had changed the law of inducement—particularly at the second step determining influence—thereby requiring “a higher threshold for establishing inducement than was applied in the earlier cases”. In the recent decision of Teva Canada Limited v Janssen Inc (“Paliperidone”), the FCA has rejected that interpretation of Corlac. The FCA held that Corlac incorporates the same principles of inducing infringement as had been established in cases dating back to 1906. In doing so, it overturned the lower Court’s inducement determination based on a supposed higher standard and found that the defendant was liable for inducement when the Corlac test was properly applied.
-
Lenczner Slaght Welcomes Martin Brandsma
Canada’s leading litigation firm is pleased to announce that Martin Brandsma has joined its Intellectual Property Group as Counsel.
-
Best Lawyers in Canada (2022-2023)
Ones to Watch – Intellectual Property