The Applicant, William B. Vass (“Vass”), requested expungement of a trademark owned by the Respondent, Leef Inc. (“Leef”), a Canadian corporation in the business of manufacturing and designing furniture. The trademark, described as a blue and grey leaf pattern with the word “Leef” in blue (“Mark”), was not placed on the furniture themselves, but was included in digital brochures, product specifications, invoices for the goods, and at other stages of the sales process.

The Federal Court dismissed an appeal by District Brewing Company, the Applicant in a trademark opposition proceeding. The Court found that though parties are not usually allowed to bring evidence or make submissions pertaining to matters not pleaded, a decision-maker may be flexible in allowing a party to raise an issue that is outside a literal reading of the pleadings, provided that no unfairness results.

Federal Court upholds decision of Associate Justice refusing to strike pleading based on a preliminary and non-limiting illustration of patent infringement

RE/MAX brought a Rule 51 motion appealing an order dismissing RE/MAX’s motion to amend its statement of claim. In the underlying dispute, RE/MAX is suing Save Max Real Estate for trademark infringement and passing off.

In Fibrogen, Inc. v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., the Federal Court of Appeal set aside an order requiring FibroGen to file fact witness statements from a discontinued action. The statements were designated confidential or highly confidential information pursuant to a confidentiality agreement.

In this matter, the Federal Court of Appeal reversed a Federal Court decision granting judgment to the applicant in the summary judgment process.

Bell Media enforced Anton Piller orders against the Defendants. This is a motion for contempt for not obeying the Anton Piller orders. The Federal Court granted the Plaintiff’s show cause motion for contempt, concluding that a prima facie case of contempt was made out.

No making, constructing or selling. Does the exclusive right to use give you anything more?

The plaintiffs, Janssen Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica, commenced these two actions (Court File Nos. T-1441-20 and T-558-22) against Pharmascience Inc. pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance Regulations) pertaining to the medication INVEGA SUSTENNA^®, which contains the active ingredient paliperidone palmitate.

The Appellants brought a s. 6(1) action under the PM(NOC) Regulations, asserting infringement of a patent relating to sustained release compositions of fampridine used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. In the decision under appeal, the Federal Court had found four claims invalid for anticipation and all of the asserted claims invalid for obviousness.