litigation

January 3, 2017

FC Rules PM(NOC) Prohibition Application Not An Abuse of Process

2015 FC 1016 - In this decision, the FC permitted the applicant to proceed with its prohibition application, despite a previous decision finding that the patent in question was invalid.
October 6, 2016

Pharmaceutical Patentees Could Face More than 100% of Actual Damages under PM(NOC) Regulations

2014 FCA 68 - Innovator pharmaceutical companies should be cautious and think twice about how aggressively they defend their patents as they could potentially face paying more than 100% of actual damages as an award under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations.
October 6, 2016

FC continues to demonstrate high degree of deference to discretionary orders of prothonotaries

2016 FC 318 - The Federal Court continues to demonstrate a high degree of deference owed to discretionary orders made by prothonotaries.
October 4, 2016

FCA Alters the Standard of Review of Prothonotary Decisions

2016 FCA 215 - The FCA has held that the standard of review applicable to discretionary orders made by prothonotaries that was enunciated in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. should be abandoned and replaced withthe standard that was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Housen v. Nikolaisen.
October 3, 2016

FCA Will not Reweigh Expert Evidence to Appeal Patent Invalidity

2015 FCA 191 - The FCA dismissed an appeal wherein Alcon sought to reverse a finding of invalidity against its patent by surreptitiously asking the FCA to reweigh the evidence as a challenge against the Federal Court Judge’s findings of fact and preferred expert evidence.
August 15, 2016

Motion to Stay Denied –Defamation Action and Trade-marks Act Claim Proceed in Parallel

2015 ONSC 7980 - The SCJ decided that the legal tests and the remedies available in a defamation action and an action for false and misleading statements under the Trade-marks Act are different enough that a stay of proceeding to block one action before the conclusion of the other should be denied.
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.
April 12, 2016

FC Discourages Questions Taken “Under Advisement” in Examinations

2015 FC 391 - The Federal Court recognized the increasing and improper use of the phrase "under advisement" in response to questions on examination for discovery.