News & Blog
-
ANY PRACTICE AREA Appeals Arbitration Class Actions Commercial Litigation Competition and Antitrust Construction and Infrastructure Defamation and Media Employment Injunctions Insolvency and Restructuring Insurance Intellectual Property Product Liability Professional Liability and Regulation Public Law Securities Litigation
Featured News
-
Chambers Canada Recognizes Lenczner Slaght’s Deep Bench of Expert...View article
September 26, 2024September 26, 2024
-
Lenczner Slaght Welcomes 10 New AssociatesView article
September 9, 2024September 9, 2024
-
Lenczner Slaght Litigators Recognized as the Best Lawyers in CanadaView article
August 29, 2024August 29, 2024
Intellectual Property - On the Docket
-
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.
November 1, 2024The 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.
October 17, 2024The recent decision in Munchkin Inc v Angelcare Canada Inc presents an example of circumstances in which foreign parent companies can be held liable for patent infringement in Canada.
October 17, 2024Fall Regulatory Round Up
Activity abounds on the regulatory landscape from modernization and transparency initiatives to consultations, collaborations, and even potential implementations. Our Fall Regulatory Round Up highlights significant developments for drug products and patents that are of interest to those in the life sciences and biotech spaces. We will be following these important regulatory initiatives as they continue to unfold and will provide updates of interest.
September 30, 2024In 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.
September 9, 2024The 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.
July 18, 2024In 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.
June 24, 2024Savvy 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.
June 13, 2024As widely reported by the likes of CBC, the Guardian, the Verge and CNBC, OpenAI has indicated they will “pause” the use of their AI-generated voice after users (and Scarlett Johansson herself) noted the striking similarity to Scarlett Johansson's voice from the film “Her”. This connection may have been intentional, OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, posted a one-word message – “her” – on his social media on the day the AI-generated voice was unveiled.
May 24, 2024As 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.
May 22, 2024-
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.
May 22, 2024A desire to expedite patent disputes may result in a party pursuing summary adjudication. We have previously commented on a number of cases relating to the use of summary proceedings for resolving patent cases in Canada. In particular, in the Federal Court of Appeal’s 2022 decision in Gemak Trust v Jempak Corporation, the FCA held that summary judgment is not appropriate where there are serious issues with respect to the credibility of witnesses, and the Court observed more generally that “while patent infringement issues are not by definition excluded from the ambit of the summary judgment process, they tend to raise complex issues of fact and law that are usually better left for trial”. We noted that in Gemak, the FCA was tapping the brakes on a trend towards increased adoption of summary proceedings in patent cases, and that for parties interested in summary adjudication, summary trial may be a more attractive option, particularly where witness credibility, and especially expert credibility, is likely to be an issue.
May 15, 2024The multifaceted nature of generative AI is bound to create legal complexities at the intersection of intellectual property law and class actions, as this emerging technology disrupts not only the tech landscape but the legal one too.
May 6, 2024Did Drake respond to an alleged feud with fellow artists, including Kendrick Lamar and Rick Ross? As reported by the LA Times, a track titled ‘Push Ups (Drop and Give Me 50)’ appeared online recently, taking aim at Lamar and several of his recent musical collaborators. However, this track remained unclaimed on any of Drake’s official platforms, causing some to question whether this track was fan-generated using artificial intelligence. This cynicism may be justified: Drake is reportedly no stranger to having to denounce fan-generated songs, and Lamar’s rumoured response was actually the work of artificial intelligence and another rapper.
April 22, 2024In 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.
April 15, 2024In 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.
April 12, 2024Few pop icons have navigated the art of protecting their intellectual property as well as Taylor Swift. Not only does Taylor Swift have an outstanding knack for creating number one hits, a keen eye for branding, and an entrepreneurial spirit that is inspiring, she is also business savvy in protecting her trademarks and copyright. On this International Women’s Day 2024 we look to Taylor Swift as an inspiration in IP protection, enforcement, and commercialization, as we celebrate women who “could show you incredible things”.
March 6, 2024If 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.
February 22, 2024It 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.
February 16, 2024On August 25, 2023, Canadians were advised that KLEENEX was blowing out of town and would no longer be available in Canada (see Globe & Mail article).
August 30, 2023-
The “Creativity Machine”, owned by Stephen Thaler, generated a work of art of its own accord. Thaler applied to register copyright in the artistic work titled ‘A Recent Entrance to Paradise’ with the United States Copyright Office. The application stated the Creativity Machine created the work and it was listed as the author. Thaler sought to transfer the copyright to himself as owner. The registration was denied.
August 22, 2023In 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.
July 18, 2023Andrew Moeser will be sharing his expertise on patent enforcement at the joint Intellectual Property Institute of Canada and McGill University Summer IP Course. Andrew will lead a discussion on Patent Enforement: Infringement, as well as participate on a Mock Trial focused on Expert Reports and Cross-Examination of a Witness.
July 18, 2023In 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, 2023Patent infringement cases are complex and technical, and historically Canadian courts were reluctant to endorse summary disposition in the patent context. However, in recent years there has been an increased trend towards the application of summary proceedings in this area. In particular, we have previously commented on decisions of the Federal Court (“FC”) (Canmar, Kobold, and Janssen) and Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) (Canmar and ViiV) that demonstrate the Court’s willingness to approve summary proceedings in patent cases under the appropriate circumstances. Last fall, the FCA decision in Gemak was interpreted by some commentators as a return to the historical position, but in our view, Gemak can be viewed as tapping the brakes on summary judgment rather than signalling a more sweeping reversal of the trend towards summary adjudication.
May 4, 2023Indirect 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.
April 13, 2023The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is on the rise and is receiving significant attention across disciplines and industries. The impact of generative AI spans various fields such as healthcare, gaming, education, marketing, visual arts, literature, music, banking and fashion, to name few. In the context of intellectual property law, where the focus is on innovation and creativity, generative AI raises countless complex questions. This blog post focuses on ChatGPT and copyright.
March 1, 2023In a recent decision, Takeda Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, the Federal Court dismissed the Plaintiff, Takeda’s, motion for consolidation of two actions against Apotex relating to Takeda’s dexlansoprazole (DEXILANT) under section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the “PM(NOC) Regulations”).
January 30, 2023Some things just go better together and probably always will, as Luke Combs sings in ‘Better Together’. Like a cup of coffee and a sunrise; Sunday drives and time to kill. Multiple section 8 actions however have not made the cut. According to the recent decision of Justice Southcott in Apotex Inc v Janssen Inc, multiple actions for section 8 damages should not have common issues heard together.
November 3, 2022Over the last several years there has been a trend towards increased adoption of summary proceedings for resolving patent cases in Canada. In particular, we have previously commented on decisions of the Federal Court (e.g., Kobold partial SJ motion) and Federal Court of Appeal (e.g., Canmar Appeal) that signalled a willingness to move away from the historic reluctance of those courts to approve summary judgment for patent infringement actions. We had also noted that summary proceedings were a trend to watch this year.
September 8, 2022-
The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PMNOC Regulations ) is a complete code. In Apotex Inc v Eli Lilly Canada Inc, the Ontario Court of Appeal weighs in on the drawn-out battle between patent owners and generics on whether monetary relief is available outside the parameters of the PMNOC regime. It is not.
August 19, 2022Jordana Sanft & Kaitlin SoyeIn FibroGen, Inc v Akebia Therapeutics, Inc, the Federal Court of Appeal set aside an order requiring a party to make certain fact witness statements from a discontinued action public, restoring the proper balance and safeguarding the confidentiality of documents that had been designated as confidential or highly confidential information.
August 10, 2022Last 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).
July 21, 2022Associate 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.
June 28, 2022Summary adjudication can be enticing. In the right circumstances, it saves the parties time and money. Unsurprisingly, there is a growing trend in Canadian intellectual property litigation to use summary adjudication that we have been actively monitoring (see, e.g., our comments here, here, here, here, here and here).
June 27, 2022Bill C-27 and the Proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act: Oversight of AI in Canada is ComingJordana Sanft & Jenene RobertsOn June 16, 2022, Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry introduced Bill C-27, titled “An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts” (short title, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022), in the House of Commons.
June 21, 2022Iron Man’s suit is at the centre of an intergalactic copyright infringement battle brought by Horizon Comics Productions Inc. (“Horizon”) against Marvel Entertainment, LLC et al. (“Marvel”). The alleged infringement is largely directed to Horizon’s Canadian created Radix comic book series (the “Works”) and Marvel’s Iron Man suit from the movie Iron Man 3.
April 19, 2022Jordana Sanft & Kaitlin SoyeIn our blog 2021 Year in Review & 2022 Trends to Watch for Pharmaceutical Patents, we identified Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc v Canada (Attorney General) as an important case to watch in 2022 as leave to the Supreme Court was filed.
March 28, 2022For the second time in less than a year, Justice St. Louis of the Federal Court has set aside the issuance of a Notice of Compliance (“NOC”) to an innovator drug company and remitted the matter to the Minister of Health (“Minister”) for what will be a third determination in Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Médunik Canada (“Catalyst 2022”).
March 25, 2022The 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.
March 2, 2022-
An intellectual property battle among major athletic brands is brewing in the United States. Lululemon is suing Peloton. Peloton is suing Lululemon. And Nike is suing Lululemon.
February 23, 2022Jordana Sanft & Jenene RobertsThere have been two recent and notable developments with respect to artificial intelligence (“AI”) and intellectual property (“IP”) rights in Canada. A preliminary legal question at the intersection of AI and IP is whether AI can be granted authorship in the case of copyright or inventorship in the case of patents for something that it generated. Jurisdictions around the world are facing the same issues. This blog post discusses Canada’s first foray into this new frontier.
February 17, 2022In 2022, the use of summary proceedings in patent matters continues at the Federal Court. In Janssen Inc v Pharmascience Inc, the Court:
January 26, 2022Andrew Moeser & Kaitlin SoyeThe recent patent infringement case of Kobold Corporation v NCS Multistage Inc is interesting for two reasons: (1) it shows how a summary judgment motion can advance a case even if certain issues require a full trial; and (2) it is the first time a court has interpreted the defence of prior use since the 2018 amendments to section 56 of the Patent Act. This post considers the use of summary adjudication. Click here to read our companion post which considers the substance of the prior use defence.
January 13, 2022Andrew Moeser & Kaitlin SoyeOn January 7, 2022, the Federal Court released the public reasons in Kobold Corporation v NCS Multistage Inc. This summary judgment motion is the first judicial consideration of the prior use defence since the substantial amendments to section 56 of the Patent Act in 2018. Our comments on the procedural aspects of this summary judgment motion are available in a companion post here.
January 13, 2022In 2021, the Canadian pharmaceutical and life sciences industries were once again at the forefront of innovation, developing and commercializing new vaccines, drugs, and medical devices. The media continued to shine a light on the advances made to protect the public from COVID-19, including regulatory approvals for new mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines. In the pharmaceutical patent litigation arena in particular, we saw some new trends develop. There were important developments in proceedings relating to pharmaceutical patents, advances in cases and legislative developments relating to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (“PMPRB”) as well as judicial review applications and appeals in patent-related fields.
January 6, 2022Andrew Moeser & Jacqueline ChanFor the first time, the Federal Court has dealt with the issue of whether a party is permitted to appoint co-solicitors of record. The Court held that a party may not appoint co-solicitors as of right, but it provided guidance on the circumstances in which co-solicitors may be permitted. It remains to be seen how “special” such circumstances must be, especially since such arrangements are not uncommon in modern practice.
November 17, 2021The 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.
October 26, 2021Sana Halwani & Jacqueline ChanIn 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.
August 5, 2021As part of our series on summary adjudication, we previously commented on the Federal Court’s recent use of a summary trial to resolve a patent infringement dispute. The abbreviated procedure of a summary trial addresses many of the Federal Court’s traditional concerns with summary judgment (e.g., lacking live evidence).
June 21, 2021-
Sana Halwani & Jacqueline Chan
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.
June 18, 2021Andrew Moeser & Veronica C. TsouSince the amendments to the PM(NOC) Regulations in 2017, both generic and brand side litigants have struggled with the question of whether the second person’s Notice of Allegation governs the issues in the proceeding, or the Statement of Defence. The Federal Court of Appeal has answered in this week’s decision in Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc v Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc: it is the Statement of Defence.
June 11, 2021The 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).
January 26, 2021Since 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.
January 25, 2021Patent 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).
November 25, 2020Sana Halwani & Jacqueline ChanThe 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.
November 16, 2020Kaitlin Soye & Jim LeporeMany know Amazon as the world’s largest online retailer, a mantle it carries, in part, because of just how easy it is to buy about anything. In fact, as many Canadians know, you can buy something on Amazon with as little as “1-Click”.
November 12, 2020Sana Halwani & Veronica C. TsouLast 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).
November 9, 2020Veronica C. Tsou & Kaitlin SoyeThe popular Canadian pastime of snowmobile litigation has turned up yet another interesting decision (Bombardier Recreational Products Inc v Arctic Cat Inc, 2020 FC 946) – this time on the topic of injunctions. This decision of Justice Roy arose from the moving parties’ attempt to vary an Order issued by the Federal Court in Bombardier Recreational Products Inc v Arctic Cat Inc, 2020 FC 691. As Justice Roy noted, the Order itself was “anything but unusual,” and was representative of injunctions issued in patent cases time and time again. Given this and the existing jurisprudence, it was perhaps a predictable result that the parties were denied any relief.
October 16, 2020The 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.
June 30, 2020-
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).
June 9, 2020During last year's NBA Finals, Kawhi Leonard was taking on more than the Golden State Warriors. In the middle of the Finals, he filed a lawsuit against the company he formerly endorsed—Nike—in the Southern District of California (original complaint here). At issue was Leonard's "Klaw Logo," which he claimed to have conceived before his contract with Nike. An early sketch of the logo and the design Nike ultimately used are shown side-by-side here.
May 13, 2020The legacy of the movie The Room, Tommy Wiseau’s infamously terrible 2003 cult classic, reached new heights (or lows depending on your point of view) last week when it made its mark on Canadian law in Justice Schabas’ decision in Wiseau Studio, LLC v Harper. A movie lovingly advertised as providing a viewing experience akin to “getting stabbed in the head” prompted copyright litigation and, in the process, has provided a new story of the risks of pursuing an ill-advised litigation strategy through trial.
May 7, 2020Sana Halwani & Jacqueline ChanOn 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.
April 27, 2020In 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.
April 9, 2020Veronica C. TsouThese are trying, stressful, and uncertain times, even for the optimist. As the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 rise and hospitals begin to fill, the need for medicine and medical supplies is at the forefront of everyone’s mind. The search is on for rapid and innovative solutions. But what if that brilliant solution treads on a patent?
March 27, 2020The 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.
July 17, 2019Paul-Erik Veel & Andrew SkodynThe intersection of intellectual property law and competition law is an area that gains greater significance with each passing year. Much of the focus in this area recently has been on the appropriate scope of action to take by regulators. For example, in Canada, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines promulgated by the Competition Bureau in 2016 have attracted significant attention.
April 3, 2018The 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.
July 19, 2017Andrew SkodynOn June 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously granted AstraZeneca’s appeal in the long-awaited conclusion of the “Promise Doctrine” saga in AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc.
July 11, 2017-
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...
May 25, 2017It’s no surprise to litigators that some courts tend to be relaxed with the rules of evidence in civil cases. In many contexts, courts are prepared to admit inadmissible hearsay evidence and simply address evidentiary concerns by noting that such evidence may be given less weight. That type of approach was often taken in cases under section 8 of the Patented Medicine (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.
June 7, 2016Andrew Skodyn & Laurel D. HoggA recent Federal Court decision has given new meaning to the notion of criminalizing marijuana. The case of Trans-High Corporation v Hightimes Smokeshop and Gifts Inc (2015 FC 1104) is perhaps one of the first times marijuana related trade-mark infringement has landed someone in jail.
December 15, 2015Refusals motions have long been the scourge of the intellectual property bar. Prothonotary Aalto recently observed: "Refusals motions that last days on...
July 21, 2015Melanie BairdIn industrial design, it pays to have it all. In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal held that while a purely functional design does not attract protection (as per section 5.1(a) of the Industrial Design Act), an industrial design that has a functional aspect can still be enforced if the design is also visually appealing.
June 3, 2015Andrew SkodynIn the recent decision of Imperial Manufacturing Group Inc. v. Decor Grates Incorporated, 2015 FCA 100, the Federal Court of Appeal used an appeal of a particulars motion in an industrial designs case to eliminate the prior distinction between the standard of review of discretionary or interlocutory orders and all other appeals from the Federal Court.
May 13, 2015Andrew SkodynIn a rare and surprising turn of events, a full panel of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed Sanofi-Aventis' appeal of its "Section 8" liability at the conclusion of oral argument on April 20. (Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc., 2015 SCC 20).
April 23, 2015A decision issued last month contains a useful synopsis by Justice Zinn of principles applicable to damages awards in patent infringement cases: Eli...
February 27, 2015The British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in Low v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2014 BCSC 1469 could radically change the legal landscape for patent law in Canada. Patent law has thus far been entirely statutory rather than a product of the common law; courts had not recognized any common law rights or remedies in relation to patents. The decision of Justice Smith changes that, and in so doing changes the risks innovators must consider.
September 18, 2014
