Articles

CBA Members

Intellectual
Property

CBA Intellectual Property Section

Articles are published by the Intellectual Property Section. Members interested in posting articles are encouraged to send them to the Section by email: CBAI_P@cba.org.

Today
Today

Case summary: Motions for summary trial to be denied only in rare circumstances

  • October 30, 2023

Janssen Inc., and Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (collectively, the “Applicants”) brought a motion to oppose the scheduling of a motion for summary trial that Sandoz Canada Inc. (the “Respondent”) intended to bring under section 213(1) of the Federal Courts Rules (the “Rules”).

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Federal Court denies in personam order to produce assignor inventors for discovery

  • October 30, 2023
  • Karin Mistlberger and Pablo Tseng

Jamp Pharma Corporation (the “Applicant”) brought an application under Rule 237(4) of the Federal Courts Rules (the “Rules”) to compel the attendance of Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH’s (collectively, the “Respondents”) 13 employee inventors (the “Inventor Employees”) for discovery.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Law to be applied in evidentiary issues

  • October 30, 2023
  • Cheryl Cheung

The plaintiff, Fromfroid S.A., sued the defendants, 1048547 Ontario Inc. (better known as Skotidakis) and Frimasco Inc., for infringing Fromfroid’s Canadian Patent No. 2,301,753.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Costs award in patent infringement case

  • October 30, 2023
  • Cheryl Cheung

These reasons related to a decision on costs following a patent infringement judgment (citation: 2023 FC 925). In the main action, the plaintiff, Fromfroid S.A., prevailed and was awarded regular and punitive damages against the defendants,1048547 Ontario Inc. (better known as Skotidakis) and Frimasco Inc.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Federal Court grants application to add inventor

  • August 23, 2023
  • Eric Li

This case involved Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Regeneron”) application pursuant to s 52 of the Patent Act (“Act”) to vary the records concerning the registration for their patent so as to name an additional inventor.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Federal Court refuses motion to compel answers to questions objected to during examination for discovery

  • August 23, 2023
  • Eric Li

This case involved a proceeding pursuant to s 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) brought a motion pursuant to Rule 97 of the Federal Courts Rules to compel answers to questions that were objected to during examination for discovery of one of Juno Pharmaceuticals Corp.’s (“Juno”) fact witnesses. Allergan grouped these questions under four categories, A, B, C, and D.

Intellectual Property