IP Litigation Archives - Page 2 of 3

Filter by
Categories
Tags
Show all

August 29, 2017

Federal Court Awards Dow over $644 Million in Damages

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.

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.

July 25, 2017

FC Awards Costs Award at 50% Elevation of Tariff B Due to Poor Conduct

Pollard Banknote Limited v Babn Technologies Corp, 2016 FC 1193 Poor conduct during patent litigation can result in significantly elevated costs awards, even if the conduct […]

July 18, 2017

Federal Court of Canada Dismisses Motion for Interlocutory Injunction and Orders Security for Costs

2016 FC 606 - The FC dismissed TearLab’s application for an interlocutory injunction preventing I-MED from selling its i-Pen System, and ordered TearLab to pay security for costs.

July 11, 2017

Supreme Court of Canada upholds worldwide interlocutory injunction against Google

2017 SCC 34 - Canada's Supreme Court dismissed Google Inc.’s appeal and upheld the worldwide interlocutory injunction against it.

June 20, 2017

FC Finds Torque Anchor Patents Invalid or Not Infringed and Violation of Section 7(a) of Trade-marks Act

2016 FC 1279 - The FC found that API violated section 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act by making false or misleading statements tending to discredit the business, goods, or services of Excalibre, when it sent cease and desist letters to some of Excalibre’s customers.

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.

May 30, 2017

Federal Court of Appeal reverses Federal Court’s finding of a settlement agreement between Apotex and Allergan

2016 FCA 155 - The FCA overturned a FC decision in which it was held that the parties had settled the litigation, and had issued an order enforcing the terms of the settlement. The FCA found that a settlement had not in fact been reached, set aside the FC’s order and granted Apotex its appeal and costs.

May 23, 2017

SCOTUS Lands a Blow Against Patent Trolls by Limiting Patent Litigation Venues

581 U.S. ___ (2017) - SCOTUS reaffirmed one of its previous holdings to find that the proper venue for bringing a patent infringement suit against a domestic corporation is either where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular place of business.

March 21, 2017

Ontario Superior Court Finds Grey Marketing Settlement Agreements Not Void for Restraint of Trade

2016 ONSC 7201 - The ONSC found Bemco to be in breach of its settlement agreement with Mars, and found Mars entitled to summary judgment. The settlement agreement was in relation to Bemco grey marketing Mars' goods.

January 3, 2017

FC Rules PM(NOC) Prohibition Application Not An Abuse of Process

2015 FC 1016 - In this decision, the FC permitted the applicant to proceed with its prohibition application, despite a previous decision finding that the patent in question was invalid.

October 6, 2016

Pharmaceutical Patentees Could Face More than 100% of Actual Damages under PM(NOC) Regulations

2014 FCA 68 - Innovator pharmaceutical companies should be cautious and think twice about how aggressively they defend their patents as they could potentially face paying more than 100% of actual damages as an award under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations.

October 6, 2016

FC continues to demonstrate high degree of deference to discretionary orders of prothonotaries

2016 FC 318 - The Federal Court continues to demonstrate a high degree of deference owed to discretionary orders made by prothonotaries.

October 4, 2016

FCA Alters the Standard of Review of Prothonotary Decisions

2016 FCA 215 - The FCA has held that the standard of review applicable to discretionary orders made by prothonotaries that was enunciated in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. should be abandoned and replaced withthe standard that was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Housen v. Nikolaisen.

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.

August 19, 2016

Injunctions for Patent Infringement: Only “Some” Connection Between a Product’s Infringing Features And Demand For Competitor’s Product is Required

(No. 14-1802 Fed. Cir.) - The CAFC held that a patentee does not have to prove that the infringing features of a competitor’s product were the exclusive or predominant reason why consumers bought the competitor’s product to obtain an injunction for patent infringement. Rather, it is sufficient to prove that there was some connection between the infringing features and the demand for the competitor’s product.

August 15, 2016

Motion to Stay Denied –Defamation Action and Trade-marks Act Claim Proceed in Parallel

2015 ONSC 7980 - The SCJ decided that the legal tests and the remedies available in a defamation action and an action for false and misleading statements under the Trade-marks Act are different enough that a stay of proceeding to block one action before the conclusion of the other should be denied.

August 8, 2016

Knowledge of Related Patents not “Actual Knowledge” for Awarding Pre-Issuance Damages

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.

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.