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.

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.

This decision involved a motion for summary trial, which arose after the Federal Court (“Court”) dismissed a motion for summary judgment by finding there was a genuine issue for trial.

This case involved Milano Pizza Ltd.’s (“Milano”) appeal from a decision of the Federal Court (“FC”), which dismissed its action for trademark infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill.

This decision was an assessment of costs arising from Zara Natural Stones Inc.’s (“Zara”) successful appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal. The Assessment Officer applied Rule 407 of the Federal Courts Rules (“Rules”) and assessed costs in accordance with Column III of the table to Tariff B.

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.

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.

This case involved a simplified action for copyright and moral rights infringement. Leonard B. French (“French”) was the creator and registered owner of copyright in the Poppy Puppy, a stuffed animal modelled after a Dalmatian dog with poppies in place of its usual black spots.

This decision was an assessment of costs. In the underlying decision, the Federal Court (“Court”) assessed Travel Leaders Group’s claims of invalidity on the basis of material misstatement as to the date of first use, abandonment and bad faith under ss 18(1)(a), (c), and (e) of the Trademarks Act, respectively.

This decision concerned a motion by the Plaintiffs under Rule 36 of the Federal Courts Rules to request a six-month adjournment of the trial of the underlying trademark action. The Plaintiffs requested the adjournment on the basis that its recently retained expert witness needed additional time to prepare her report.