Articles

CBA Members

Intellectual
Property

CBA Intellectual Property Section

Articles are published by the Intellectual Property Section. Members interested in posting articles are encouraged to send them to the Section by email: CBAI_P@cba.org.

Today
Today

Case summary: Registration of trademark maintained after expungement by registrar

  • May 02, 2023
  • Cindy Bélanger

This is an appeal from the Registrar of Trademarks’ decision expunging the mark NAVIGATOR (registered for chemicals for use in the manufacture of paper products) pursuant to section 45 of the Trademarks Act. The additional evidence filed by the Applicant on appeal was found to be material and as such the Court proceeded on a de novo basis.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Federal Court adds inventor to two Canadian patents

  • April 26, 2023
  • Kathryn Zanetti

Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. brought an application, seeking to add Dr. Mark J. Evans as an inventor to Canadian Patent No. 2,645,810 [the “810 Patent”] and Canadian Patent No. 3,022,097 [the “097 Patent”]. The Court granted the application and added Dr. Evans as an inventor.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Federal Court refuses consolidation of PM(NOC) actions

  • April 26, 2023
  • Kathryn Zanetti

Takeda brought a motion to consolidate two actions commenced under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133. The parties agreed that if the actions were consolidated the trial dates would need to be postponed. The motion was dismissed.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Federal Court first principles on costs assessment

  • April 26, 2023
  • Shaun B. Cody

In this decision, made by the second costs’ Assessment Officer assigned to the matter, the fact pattern is somewhat unusual. The Plaintiff, Georgetown Rail Equipment Company, had initially been successful at trial. The Federal Court found “the patents were not invalid on the ground of obviousness” and went on to find that “Tetra’s sale of the system to CN Rail and its support of the system infringed both patents.”

Intellectual Property