damages

August 29, 2017
federal court blinding

Federal Court Awards Dow over $644 Million in Damages

2017 FC 637 - The FC addressed three outstanding issues in the calculation of damages and profits and ordered Nova to pay Dow over $644 million for infringing Dow's Canadian patent.
August 22, 2017
federal court blinding

Federal Court of Appeal remits decision based on hearsay evidence back to the Federal Court for redetermination

2016 FCA 161 - The FCA remitted a proceeding back to the FC for redetermination after agreeing with Pfizer that part of Teva’s evidence in the FC decision was based on hearsay.
May 9, 2017

Apotex’s Claims for Damages for Delayed Market Entry Allowed to Proceed

2017 ONSC 224 - Apotex sought compensation from Eli Lilly for damages suffered for delayed entry to the market for its generic version of olanzapine; the ONSC ordered Eli Lilly to pay Apotex a total of $20,000.
April 25, 2017

Federal Court finds foreign, non-exclusive licensee entitled to damages

2016 FC 593 - The FC awarded Janssen Canada and Janssen US almost $19 million in total damages for Teva's infringement of a Japanese entity's patent, for which Janssen US had never even exercised its licence in Canada.
August 8, 2016

Knowledge of Related Patents not “Actual Knowledge” for Awarding Pre-Issuance Damages

In U.S. patent infringement, the “actual notice” requirement in 35 USC § 154(d) requires actual knowledge of a published patent application. Knowledge of related patents, even those sharing a description, and indirect references to a published patent application in emails may not be sufficient to prove actual notice.
February 10, 2016

FCA Endorses Non-Infringing Alternatives as a Relevant to Patent Damages

2015 FCA 171 - The FCA determined that it is relevant to damages whether the infringer had a non-infringing alternative that it could have used.
September 8, 2015

Federal Court Revisits Schmeiser Differential Method for Calculating Profits

ADIR v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 721 - In an accounting of profits case, the FC stated that if a non-infringing alternative is to be considered, it “cannot be what one would have done had one complied with the law”.