Louis Brown et al v HMTQ et al, 2014 FC 831 - Canada successfully argued that the inventor made an untrue material allegation for having not indicated in the patent application that he was a public servant, but whether this would invalidate the patent was considered a genuine issue requiring a trial.
E Mishan & Sons, Inc v Supertek Canada Inc, 2014 FC 326 - The Federal Court dismissed an infringement claim made by the plaintiffs regarding the sale of self-expanding garden hoses by the defendants because the infringed claims were declared invalid for obviousness.
Newco Tank Corp v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 287 - The person of ordinary skill in the art was determined to have background knowledge that there was a heat inefficiency problem that the invention seeks to address. The only evidence for this proposition is that it was discussed under the “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION” heading of the patent.
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".