Articles

CBA Members

Propriété
intellectuelle

Section du droit de la propriété intellectuelle de l’ABC

Les articles de la Section du droit de la propriĂ©tĂ© intellectuelle de l’ABC sont publiĂ©s par la Section du droit de la propriĂ©tĂ© intellectuelle. Les membres qui souhaitent proposer des articles sont invitĂ©s Ă  les envoyer Ă  la section Ă  : droitproprieteintellectuelleABC@cba.org.

AujourdĘĽhui
AujourdĘĽhui

Case summary: Registration of trademark maintained after expungement by registrar

  • 02 mai 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.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Federal Court adds inventor to two Canadian patents

  • 26 avril 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.

Propriété intellectuelle

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

  • 26 avril 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.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Federal Court first principles on costs assessment

  • 26 avril 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.”

Propriété intellectuelle