Damages are pecuniary losses suffered by the plaintiff resulting from the
infringement of the patent, which may take the form of lost profits on sales,
etc. or royalty payments.
SCC #39576: Earlier this year, Travelway filed for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada over a trademark dispute with Wenger, the makers of Swiss Gear.
Fed. Cir. 2019-2041 - The CAFC held that Packet Intelligence was precluded from claiming $3.5M in pre-suit damages because the marking requirement was not met.
2018 FCA 32 - The FCA dismissed Apotex’s appeal challenging the remedial decision, regarding Bayer's Canadian Patent No. 2,382,426, holding that subsection 57(1) of the Patent Act did not grant a defendant in a patent infringement suit the right to choose an accounting of profits over damages to be paid to the patentee.
2016 FC 986 - The FC dismissed Supertek's claim that Mishan engaged in conduct contrary to Section 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act, in relation to a Canadian patent.
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.
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.
2017 FC 350 - The Federal Court outlined in this decision how the Dow Chemical Company should be compensated by Nova Chemicals Corporation for its infringement of Dow’s patent.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Apotex Inc. v. Schering Corporation, 2013 ONSC 1411 Sanofi brought a motion for an order striking Apotex’s statement of claim, or in the alternative, a stay […]