Low v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2014 BCSC 1469 - This decision brings one step closer the possibility of wide-ranging, class-based, third-party liability created by patents that are found to be “wrongfully obtained”.
Teva Canada Limited v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2014 FC 634 - Following an action for damages under s. 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, Teva and Pfizer were unable to agree on the quantum of costs or pre- and post-judgement interest.
Allergan Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FC 567 - In terms of claim construction, this case shows the tension between construing claims based solely on the wording of the claims versus peering beyond the wording of the claims to distill an underlying invention.
SNF Inc v CIBA Speciality Chemicals Water Treatments Limited, 2014 FC 616 - the Court confirmed that “the privilege accorded elsewhere to European patent attorneys does not extend to Canadian litigation.”
Bauer Hockey Corp v Sport Maska Inc - 2014 FCA 158 - The Court confirmed that punitive damages are available in trade-mark infringement cases, but “[a]llegations of willful and knowing infringement are alone insufficient to support a claim to punitive damages."
Janssen Inc v Abbvie Corporation, 2014 FCA 176 - The Court held that Janssen has failed to establish unavoidable irreparable harm required to stay the injunction, and characterized the harm claimed by Janssen as “the sort of inconvenience suffered by any party when it must comply with an injunction".
Teva Canada Limited v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2014 FCA 138 - The Court held that punitive and exemplary damages cannot be available where the statutory regime underlying the claim explicitly or implicitly precludes them. This is the case under the PM(NOC) Regulations.
Hospira Healthcare Corporation v Canada (Health), 2014 FC 179 - The Court determined that a pharmaceutical innovator benefiting from data protection has standing where that data protection is challenged.
Nautilus Inc v Biosig Instruments Inc, No 13-369, 572 US ____ (2014) - On the matter of interpreting the meaning of electrodes in a "spaced relationship with each other", the US Supreme Court held that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit.