2017 FCA 225 - Federal Court of Appeal upheld the trial level decision invalidating Ciba's Canadian patent for obviousness, and elaborated on the obviousness inquiry, endorsing an approach that focuses on construing the claims rather than identifying the inventive concept.
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.
2017 FC 6 - MediaTube brought allegations of infringement against Bell over one of its IT patents, asserting that Bell had infringed the patent with Bell’s IPTV services. The FC deemed the patent to be valid, but not infringed. Costs were decided in Bell’s favour and elevated to reflect the punitive damages claimed by MediaTube and the weak argument they had put forth.
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.
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.
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.
Lundbeck Canada Inc v Canada (Health), 2014 FC 1049 - How should overlapping expert costs be allocated? Three parties each sought a Notice of Compliance (NOC) for the same drug, and the innovator relied on much the same expert evidence in each proceeding but costs were not precisely allocated among the three proceedings.
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.
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.
Pfizer Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FCA 54 - The Court rejected Pfizer's argument that the trial judge did not properly apply the R. v. J.-L.J., 2000 SCC 51 case when assessing the admissibility of what Pfizer alleged were novel scientific theories put forth by Apotex’s expert.