Janssen Inc. v Pharmascience Inc., 2022 FC 62

This decision dealt with a motion brought by the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) to strike three affidavits filed by Galderma Canada Inc. (Galderma) in the context of a judicial review application brought by Galderma. The judicial review was in regards to a redetermination decision of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) relating to Galderma’s drug Differin.

This lengthy decision involved a patent dispute between PSET and Google in respect of a patent for online advertising entitled “management of advertising expenses in online media,” after a 15-day trial.

Following a summary trial granting damages and an injunction for passing off and copyright infringement of software (see 2021 FC 1336), the Court granted lump sum costs fixed at 25% of actual fees less a minor adjustment, plus reasonable disbursements.

The Court considered motions by each party to amend their pleadings and a motion by the defendant to bifurcate or adjourn the trial scheduled for August 2022. The defendant had implemented software updates alleged to be non-infringing alternatives, which had required updated expert reports and document requests. The plaintiff had sought to plead the new versions were “functionally equivalent” to the earlier versions of the software.

This was a failed section 56 appeal to set aside the Trademarks Opposition Board’s (TMOB) decision, rejecting the Applicants’ opposition to RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Ltd.’s trademark application to register HALLMARK for real estate services, among other services.

Lululemon athletica Canada inc. (“Lululemon”) sued Katelyn Dawn Campbell (“Campbell”), by way of a motion for summary trial, for infringing Lululemon’s registered trademarks (the “Marks”) by selling counterfeit merchandise.

2424508 Ontario Ltd v Rallysport Direct LLC, 2022 FCA 24 (CanLII)

On this pleadings motion, the case management judge declined to strike a pleading of abuse of process in the context of a trademark infringement action. That decision was upheld on appeal by Justice Little.

This decision concerned a motion brought by the plaintiff for leave to file a reply expert report. The underlying action was brought by the plaintiff under s. 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, and the plaintiff’s expert had provided an initial expert report and a revision on the potential profits in the but-for world.