Evidence

May 1, 2019
A banker's box filled with files containing evidence

Trademarks and New Evidence on Appeal

2019 FC 406 - FC confirms that registered owner is not precluded to submit new evidence on appeal if no evidence is submitted after receiving s.45 notice from the Registrar.
April 10, 2019

Trademark Expungement: Insufficient Evidence of Use and Lack of Dominant Feature

2018 FC 1261 - Trademarks expunged for lack of evidence establishing use, and for using deviants without the dominant features of the trademark design.
September 20, 2018

Defence of Prior Disclosure Needs Material Facts

2018 FC 689 – Federal Court confirms that material facts must be pleaded in order to succeed with defence of prior disclosure.
September 19, 2017

Federal Court finds Expert Blinding to be One Factor in Assessing Weight Given to Expert Evidence

2016 FC 857 - The FC granted Gilead’s application for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Apotex in respect of its Notice of Allegation until the expiry of Gilead’s Canadian patent.
August 22, 2017

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.
August 1, 2017

Federal Court of Canada finds that complexity of issues or conflicting evidence are not bars to a summary trial

2016 FC 1117 - Cascade brought a claim that Kinshofer had infringed its Canadian patent related to a safety locking device for quick couplers. After carrying out a claim construction, the FC did not find that the patent had been infringed.
June 13, 2017

FC Denies Prohibition Order Request; Finds Expert Blinding Persuasive But Not Primary Interest

2016 FC 382 - The FC concluded that Apotex’s allegations of non-infringement in respect of Shire's Canadian Patent were justified and accordingly denied Shire’s requested prohibition order.
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.
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.
March 30, 2016

FCA Nods To SCOTUS, Recommends The Use Of The Clear Error Standard Of Review In Claim Construction Where Expert Evidence Plays A Significant Role

2015 FCA 116 - The FCA advised that where expert evidence plays a significant role, claim construction might involve subsidiary factual disputes reviewed on a palpable and overriding error standard, which is equivalent to the United States clear error standard.
September 2, 2015

In Situ Reaction Cannot Avoid AstraZeneca’s Product Claim

AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 322 - Claim 1 was worded general enough to capture Apotex’s subcoating layer even though Apotex’s subcoating layer was generated by an in situ chemical reaction, a process that the patentee had not contemplated.
July 5, 2015

ONSC Orders Inspection and Photographs of One-of-a-Kind Home in Copyright Infringement Case

Tan-Jen Ltd v Di Pede, 2015 ONSC 3685 - In a copyright infringement case regarding supposedly one-of-a-kind design moulds for a home's exterior, the Court allowed inspection of the property for valuation purposes and refused a request to keep the court proceedings closed from the public.
February 3, 2015

ONCA Preserves Protection of Discussions between Expert Witnesses and Lawyers

Moore v Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55 - The Court referred to UK authorities that described patent law as an example of a highly technical area where “expert witnesses require a high level of instruction by the lawyers”, supposedly to liken the highly technical area of patent law to the highly technical area of medical malpractice with respect to its reliance on expert evidence.
October 27, 2014

Expert witnesses proven to be pivotal in Dow Chemical patent infringement suit

Dow Chemical Co v NOVA Chemicals Corp, 2014 FC 844 - The Federal Court found that NOVA Chemicals infringed Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705, owned by The Dow Chemical Company, by NOVA’s use of its “SURPASS” polyethylene product. Allegations of invalidity for lack of utility, claims broader than any invention made or disclosed, anticipation, obviousness, double patenting, and insufficiency of the specification were unsuccessful.
February 25, 2013

FCA Clarifies Test for Production of Samples under Rule 249 of the Federal Court Rules

Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2013 FCA 45 This was an appeal by Apotex from a FC decision upholding the order of Prothonotary Aronovitch […]
January 31, 2013

Rule 210 Motion for Default Judgment Requires Affidavit Evidence Directed to the Substance of the Statement of Claim

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Verdegem, 2013 FC 50 Monsanto commenced an action for infringement of its patent covering genetic material found in plant seeds. Verdegem was […]