Skip to content

Martin Brandsma listen


Martin* is counsel at Lenczner Slaght specializing in intellectual property litigation. His background in molecular biology and genetics instilled a creative and persistent approach to solving problems while allowing him to navigate complex subject matter. He has acted on an extensive range of patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret disputes and leverages this experience every time he builds§ and develops practical strategies. He is a determined and persuasive advocate both inside and outside of the courtroom, supporting cases with his clients’ best interests top of mind. Recognized for his concise and direct advice, clients continually rely on Martin to get results. .


  • Practice Areas:
  • Bar Admissions:
    • Ontario (2013)
  • Education:
    • University of Ottawa (2012) JD
    • Western University (2009) MSc (Molecular Biology/Genetics)
    • Western University (2007) HBSc (Genetics Specialization)


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.

Show more
  • Intellectual Property Institute of Canada - CPD Committee

  • Ontario Bar Association

  • The Advocates’ Society

  • Policing Scope Creep: Relevance in Canadian Pharma Disputes for Section 8 Damages

    In Canada, a generic pharmaceutical company can commence an action for damages under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the “Regulations”), if it successfully defends a patentee’s claims in an earlier section 6 prohibition proceeding. Section 8 actions are often complex, requiring a determination of the alleged loss suffered by assessing a “but-for world” where the generic would have received regulatory approval and commenced sales at an earlier date, but for having been blocked by the operation of the Regulations. Depending on the drug(s) and patent(s) at issue, there may be several independent section 8 actions against a patentee, each started by a different generic plaintiff (see our previous post). When distinct section 8 actions are commenced pertaining to the same drug(s), patent(s), and patentee(s), issues as to relevance and scope of each action may arise. 

    Jordana Sanft, Andrew Moeser & Martin Brandsma | April 12, 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

  • 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.

    Jordana Sanft, Andrew Moeser & Martin Brandsma | April 13, 2023

Back to top