Bauer Hockey Ltd. brought an action for patent infringement against Sport Maska Inc., doing business as CCM Hockey. This action, was ultimately unsuccessful (see Bauer Hockey Ltd. v. Sport Maska Inc. (CCM Hockey), 2020 FC 624). The court initially reserved on the issue of costs, which was addressed by this decision.

In a previous motion for summary judgement, the Federal Court of Canada held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for infringing Rallysport Direct’s copyright by unlawfully reproducing and displaying RSD’s works on the website www.subiedepot.ca. The FCC then ordered that damages would be the subject of a subsequent order.

No brick and mortar hotels in Canada are necessary to show use of hotel services in the context of summary expungement proceedings under section 45 of the Trademarks Act.

This decision was a follow-on from 2020 FC 816, which related to validity of the 684 Patent. This follow-on decision related to validity and infringement of the 540 Patent.

This decision concerns an appeal of a Trademarks Opposition Board decision (2018 TMOB 157) regarding the necessity to identify a trademark owner when a trademark is used under licence and the precision of language required in a trademark’s description of wares.

This appeal was dealt with in writing without the appearance of the parties. The appeal concerned a motion for a stay of a judgment of the Federal Court until the Federal Court of Appeal determined the appeal. The Federal Court had found that the appellants had infringed the respondent’s patent and granted a permanent injunction. The appellants appealed and asked for an order staying the injunction, damages, interest and cost award until the appeal of the underlying decision was determined.

This decision concerns a request from both parties for the court to permit reply expert reports in an infringement action related to Canadian Patent 2,800,746, titled “Pressure Assisted Oil Recovery,” involving oil extraction technology.

The present motion was brought in the context of an appeal from a Federal Court judgment on a judicial review application of the Minister’s decision to refuse to issue a Certificate of Supplementary Protection for Glaxo’s SHINGRIX shingles vaccine.

[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing Mr. Choueifaty’s patent application on the ground that the essential elements of the claimed patent fall outside the definition of ‘invention’ in section 2 of the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4. [2] This appeal turns on whether the Commissioner applied the proper test when construing the essential claims of the patent application. I agree with the Appellant that she did not. This appeal must be allowed.

This is a public version of confidential reasons for judgment issued to the parties. There are no redactions from the confidential reasons for judgment.