patent infringement
October 3, 2018
2018 FC 956 – Federal Court confirms legal test applicable for protective orders, overturns Prothonotary's Order.
September 26, 2018
2018 FC 694 – Federal Court confirms that motion for early dismissal will only be granted in the clearest of cases.
August 28, 2018
2017 FC 874 - Aitken Klee disqualified from representing Betser-Zelevitch because one of its partners had acted for Nexen in the same action, while at another law firm.
June 27, 2018
2018 FCA 32 - The FCA dismissed Apotex’s appeal challenging the remedial decision, regarding Bayer's Canadian Patent No. 2,382,426, holding that subsection 57(1) of the Patent Act did not grant a defendant in a patent infringement suit the right to choose an accounting of profits over damages to be paid to the patentee.
April 3, 2018
2017 FC 726 - The FC held that Apotex did not satisfy the factual burden required to establish a hypothetically viable non-infringing substitute during the period of infringement, which could reduce the infringement profits owed to AstraZeneca.
November 14, 2017
2016 FC 1362 - The formulation patent for the insomnia-treating drug zolpidem was found to be substantially valid, but not infringed by Pharmascience's generic version of zolpidem.
August 29, 2017
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 8, 2017
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.
August 1, 2017
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.