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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.