This cost assessment follows a successful case for the plaintiffs, Janssen Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. (“Janssen”) for a patent infringement case (2022 FC 1218), where the Court ordered a cost assessment by an Assessment Officer (the “AO”).

Seismotech IP Holdings Inc (hereinafter “Seismotech”/plaintiff) made a claim against unknown defendants (“John Does”) in Canada and in the US, as well as the domestic and foreign manufacturers (“reverse class actions”), for infringement of its patent related to intelligent thermostats.

In this appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal with costs wherein the appellant sought to overturn a decision by the Federal Court affirming that the appellant’s word mark TRIBAL CHOCOLATE was not registrable because it was confusing with an already registered word mark, TRIBAL.

In this matter, the Defendant sought to amend its defence in answer to infringement claims related to six patents and five industrial design registrations.

This Order and Reasons dealt with a motion brought by Apotex a few days before trial to amend its Further Amended Statement of Defence (the “Defence”).

This case was an application for a judicial review brought by the Applicants, Bayer Inc. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for a review of a decision by the Minister of Health, issued through the Office of Submissions and Intellectual Property (OSIP), relating to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) (PMNOC) Regulations.

Allergan and AbbVie successfully defended Juno’s invalidity attacks in this patent infringement action relating to the 691 Patent.

This is an appeal of a decision of the Federal Court in 2022 FC 1042, in which Justice Zinn dismissed Dragona Carpet Supplies Mississauga Inc.’s (“Dragona Mississauga”) claim against Dragona Carpet Supplies Ltd. and associated defendants (“Dragona Scarborough”).

This decision involves an appeal by Harley Davidson Motor Company, Inc. (“HDMC”) of the Registrar’s decisions in two proceedings under section 45 of the Trademarks Act.

This case involves a patent infringement action where the Plaintiff (McCain) alleges that its patent for a vegetable and fruit treatment process has been infringed by the Defendants (Simplot).