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.
- Filter by
- Categories
- Tags
- Show all
- Article
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Corporate
- Domain Names
- Employment
- Expungement
- Expungement
- Grey Marketing
- Industrial Designs
- Licensing
- Obviousness
- Opposition
- Passing Off
- Patent
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Strategy
- PM(NOC)
- Procedure
- Prosecution
- recognition
- Services
- Summary
- Trade Secrets
- Trade-mark
- Use
- Validity
- 35 US Code §101
- 3D printing
- Abandonment
- abstract theorems
- Abuse of Process
- Accounting of Profits
- acquired distinctiveness
- actions
- actual notice
- agreement
- Alice/Mayo Test
- Ambiguity
- Amendments
- Anticipation
- Appeal
- Apple
- application
- application fee
- arbitrary
- arbitration
- Assignment
- Australia
- Bad Faith
- Bargain Theory
- Bill C-31
- Bill C-43
- Bill C-8
- Bill C-86
- Biologics
- biosimilar
- Biotech Patents
- Blockchain
- border measures
- Brand
- broadcasting
- budget
- burden of proof
- business
- CAFC
- Canada
- Canada Gazette
- Cannabis Law
- causal link
- cdrp
- CEEO
- Certificate of Supplementary Protection
- champerty
- Chemical Patent
- chemistry
- ciba
- CIPO
- CIPO errors
- CIRA
- Claim Construction
- Class Actions
- clerical error
- College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
- combination drugs
- commissioner
- Common General Knowledge
- Complete Code
- Confidential Information
- confidentiality
- confidentiality order
- Conflict of Interest
- Confusion
- Constitution
- consumer goods
- contract
- contributory infringement
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- copyright test
- corrections
- Costs
- counterfeit
- COVID-19
- CSP
- cybersecurity
- Damages
- Data
- Data Protection
- deadline
- defamation
- defences
- Delay to Market Entry
- descriptive
- Design Patents
- deviation
- digital infringement
- disclosure
- Discovery
- Distinctiveness
- Diversity
- division of powers
- divisionals
- DNA Patents
- domain names
- dominant feature
- Dosage Range
- Double Patenting
- doubtful cases
- Due Care
- Duty of Candor
- E-Commerce
- Early dismissal
- economics
- Employment
- errors
- essentiality of elements
- Ethics
- Europe
- Events
- Evidence
- examination quality
- examination statistics
- Examiner
- Expert Blinding
- Expert Evidence
- expiry
- Expungement
- extraterritoriality
- Fair Use
- federal circuit
- Federal Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- fees
- file wrapper
- Filing
- filing date
- filing fee
- financial services
- Food and Drug Regulations
- foreign issue estoppel
- forum selection
- fraud
- Free World Trust
- frivolous
- funding
- future infringement
- generics
- geographical indications
- Good Faith
- goods
- Government
- Grace Period
- grey marketing
- Hague
- Health Canada
- Hearsay
- Honest Contractual Performance
- ICSID
- Illegality
- Improver
- Indefiniteness
- Inducement
- Industrial Designs
- inherent distinctiveness
- Injunction
- Injunctions
- Innovation
- Innovative Drugs
- Insufficient Disclosure
- Intellectual Property
- intent
- Inter Partes Review
- interlocutory injunction
- Internet
- Internship
- intra vires
- Investors
- IP Lawyer
- IP Strategy
- IPIC
- IPO
- ISP
- IT patent
- ITC
- Jurisdiction
- Late fee
- Legal Retainer
- legal test
- Legislative Reform
- Liability
- Licensing
- life science
- limitation periods
- Litigation
- litigation funding agreement
- Madrid Protocol
- Maintenance Fee
- Marking Requirement
- materiality
- medical
- method
- Methods of Medical Treatment
- misleading
- motion
- Motion to dismiss
- Motion to strike
- NAFTA
- national phase entry
- Natural Health Product
- new evidence
- Non-Infringing Alternative
- Non-Practicing Entity
- notice of allegation
- notice to rectify
- Novelty
- obivous error
- Obviousness
- Official Marks
- On-Sale Bar
- ontario
- Overbreadth
- Ownership & Inventorship
- Passing Off
- Patent Act
- Patent Agents
- Patent Appeal Board
- Patent Application
- Patent Drafting
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Office
- patent office errors
- patent practicioner
- patent prosecution
- patent requirement
- Patent Rules
- Patent Strategy
- Patent Term Adjustment
- Patent Textbook
- Patent Trial and Appeal Board
- Patent Trolls
- patentability
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Patents
- PCT
- Pharmaceutical Patent
- Pharmaceutical Pricing
- PLT
- PM(NOC)
- PM(NOC) Damages
- PMPRB
- POSITA
- pride
- prior art
- Prior Disclosure
- prior use
- Priority
- Privilege
- procedure
- Product Specificity
- prohibited marks
- Promise Doctrine
- proprietor
- Prosecution
- Prosecution History
- protective order
- prothonotaries
- Provisional Patent
- public sale
- Public Servant
- Punitive Damages
- Recognition
- Records
- registration
- Reinstatement
- Reissue
- Remedies
- representation
- request for correction
- requisition
- responding
- review
- risk
- Royalties
- s. 27
- s. 45
- s. 53
- sale
- Scheduling
- Scholarship
- SCOTUS
- second person
- Secondary Infringement
- secondary meaning
- secret sale
- section 28
- Section 45
- section 50
- Section 52
- section 56
- section 7
- security
- Selection Patents
- Services
- settlement
- Site-Blocking Orders
- skilled person
- Software
- Software Copyright
- Software Patent
- Sound Prediction
- Specification
- sponsorship
- SRED
- Standard of Review
- Standard-Essential Patents
- standing
- standing to appeal
- Start-up
- Startups
- Statute of Monopolies
- stay
- Strategy
- Sufficiency
- Summary Judgment
- superior court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- surname
- Technology
- Telecommunications
- time frame
- TPP
- Trade Secrets
- Trade-Mark
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
- Trademarks Act
- treaty
- UK
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Use
- useful article
- USMCA
- USPTO
- Utility
- Validity
- Variant
- Varying records
- Velocity
- vexatious
- who's who legal
- Written Description
May 9, 2017
May 9, 2017
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
April 25, 2017
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
August 8, 2016
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
February 10, 2016
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
September 8, 2015
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”.
July 22, 2013
July 22, 2013
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Apotex Inc. – 2013 FC 751 This action involved determining the quantum of damages to be awarded to Merck for infringement […]
March 15, 2013
March 15, 2013
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 […]