Articles

CBA Members

Propriété
intellectuelle

Section du droit de la propriĂ©tĂ© 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.

AujourdÊŒhui
AujourdÊŒhui

Case summary: Federal Court finds OPSUMITÂź (macitentan) patent valid

  • 17 aoĂ»t 2022
  • Cheryl Cheung

The plaintiffs, Janssen Inc. and Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, brought this patent action against Sandoz Canada Inc. pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance Regulations) in relation to the prescription medication OPSUMITÂź, containing the compound macitentan as the active ingredient.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Federal Court of Appeal affirms a denial of leave to amend a defence

  • 17 aoĂ»t 2022
  • Cheryl Cheung

This appeal, brought by Farmers Edge, arose from a decision by the Federal Court on an interlocutory motion that permitted Farmobile to make certain amendments to its claim but did not permit Farmers Edge to make all of the amendments to its statement of defence that it sought.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Elevated costs awarded as a result of a failure to bifurcate

  • 16 aoĂ»t 2022
  • Mackenzie Jamieson

These reasons deal with the costs and disbursements payable to Google (Defendants) as a result of their successful counterclaim as determined in 2021 FC 1435, in which McDonald J held that PSET’s (Plaintiff) ‘167 patent was invalid and not infringed. Ultimately McDonald J awarded costs at a higher level by reference to the upper range of Column of IV of Tariff B.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Federal Court returns request for amended statement of opposition to TMOB

  • 16 aoĂ»t 2022
  • Natasha Gulati

In this case, the Federal Court allowed an appeal of a decision by the Trademarks Opposition Board on behalf of the Registrar to reject a request by Anheuser-Busch, LLC for leave to file an amended Statement of Opposition pursuant to section 48 of the Trademarks Regulations, SOR/2018-227 in the opposition of H.OW. Medical Solutions Ltd.’s trademark application for the mark HELPING PEOPLE FEEL BETTER ONE BUD AT A TIME in association with a broad range of cannabis products filed on May 11, 2018.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Federal Court rules on diaper patents

  • 16 aoĂ»t 2022
  • Anika Klassen and Pablo Tseng

In 2016, Angelcare Development Inc. and other companies (collectively, “Angelcare”) sued Munchkin, Inc. and Munchkin Baby Canada, Ltd (“Munchkin”) for patent infringement, referencing six patents in connection with its “Diaper Genie” diaper disposal system: 2,640,384, 2,855,159, 2,936,415, 2,936,421, 2,937,312, and 2,686,128 (collectively, the “Patents”).

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Trademark appeal allowed in part because of new material evidence

  • 16 aoĂ»t 2022
  • Hung Nguyen

Bunzl applied to register WORKHORSE in association with a variety of work and safety-related goods. WPS opposed Bunzl’s application based on a likelihood of confusion with its own WORKHORSE trademark, used and registered in association with parkas and jackets.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Federal Court dismisses patent action related to interactive TV program guides

  • 16 aoĂ»t 2022
  • David Schnittker

Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Rovi”) brought an action alleging Videotron Ltd. (“Videotron”), infringed four of its patents related to interactive TV program guides (“IPGs”) – interactive guides that display TV program schedules: the ‘061, ‘870, ‘344, and ‘629 Patents. The Court ruled in favour of Videotron, finding all four patents obvious.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Court maintains evidentiary burden for owners in section 45 proceedings

  • 16 aoĂ»t 2022
  • Ben Pearson

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (Fasken) appealed the decision (2021 TMOB 56) of the Registrar of Trademarks (the Registrar), regarding the section 45 proceedings Fasken had commenced against GENTEC, a partnership consisting of 9011089 Ontario Limited and 2494979 Ontario Limited (Gentec) for their trademark “IQ” (Trademark Registration No. TMA 780,998) (the Mark) with respect to the good “headphones.”

Propriété intellectuelle