Markwell Clarizio LLP

Menu
Contact Us

IP Decisions

Ambiguity Strikes Again: The Court of Appeal Finds the Claims Ambiguous

IP Decisions /

On January 22, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Locke J.A, Roussel J.A., and Goyette J.A.) (“FCA”) upheld the Federal Court’s (“FC”) ruling that certain claims in AP&C ADVANCED POWDERS & COATINGS INC.’s Canadian Patents Nos. 3,003,502 and 3,051,236 (collectively, the “AP&C Patents”) were ambiguous and therefore invalid. This decision is notable for at […]

Ambiguity Strikes Again: The Court of Appeal Finds the Claims Ambiguous Read More »

Federal Court Goes All-In on Claim Construction in Assessing Patentable Subject Matter

IP Decisions /

Co-authored with Adam Haller On November 12, 2025, the Federal Court (per Whyte Nowak J.) held that the Commissioner of Patents (the “Commissioner”) made several errors of law in finding that an application for a “Method for Playing a Card Game” did not qualify as patentable subject matter under the Patent Act. The Court remitted

Federal Court Goes All-In on Claim Construction in Assessing Patentable Subject Matter Read More »

Common Design Infringement Finds its Footing in Canada

IP Decisions /

In the latest chapter of the Adeia Guides Inc. (formerly “Rovi”) (“Adeia”) and Videotron Ltd. (“Videotron”) patent infringement battle, Adeia alleged that Videotron infringed four patents within the same family related to digital entertainment technologies. Videotron denied infringement and counterclaimed for invalidity on the basis of anticipation, obviousness, and in the case of one patent,

Common Design Infringement Finds its Footing in Canada Read More »

The FCA Digs Into Downhole Hydraulic Fracturing Patent

IP Decisions /

Co-authored by Delara Emtyazi (Student-at-Law) In a decision issued October 20, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Walker J.A. with Stratas J.A. and Monaghan J.A. concurring) (“FCA”) held that the Federal Court (per McVeigh J) erred in construing the claims of Kobold Corporation’s (“Kobold”) Canadian Patent No. 3,027,571 (“‘571 Patent”) and as a result,

The FCA Digs Into Downhole Hydraulic Fracturing Patent Read More »

What You Claim Is What You Get; The Disclosure Cannot Change It

IP Decisions /

On July 29, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) per Rennie J.A. dismissed an appeal from a trial judgment that found all claims in AGI Suretrack, LLC’s (“AGI”) 742 Patent invalid for anticipation or obviousness. AGI Suretrack, LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc. 2025 FCA 134 Background AGI’s 742 Patent relates to agricultural technology that

What You Claim Is What You Get; The Disclosure Cannot Change It Read More »

Timing is Everything: FCA Affirms OSIP’s Timing Interpretation in Patent Register Dispute

IP Decisions /

  On August 8, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) held that Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”), a biosimilar manufacturer, was not required to address Bayer Inc.’s (“Bayer”) newly issued patent (the “315 Patent”) for EYLEA (aflibercept) under the PM(NOC) Regulations because it had not been added to the Patent Register when Amgen’s New Drug Submission

Timing is Everything: FCA Affirms OSIP’s Timing Interpretation in Patent Register Dispute Read More »

McCain’s Patent Action Zapped By Pulsed Electric Field

IP Decisions /

On June 13, 2025, the Federal Court (per McHaffie J) held that J.R. Simplot Company (“Simplot”) did not infringe a patent owned by McCain Foods (“McCain”) by applying an electric field to uncooked potatoes before cutting them into French fries. McCain owned Canadian Patent No. 2,412,841 (“Patent”) until its expiry in 2021. The Patent claimed

McCain’s Patent Action Zapped By Pulsed Electric Field Read More »

Summary Judgment Denied in a Riveting Rosie Copyright Battle

IP Decisions /

Co-authored by Dino Clarizio On January 31, 2025, the Federal Court (per Gascon J.) dismissed a motion for summary judgment in a copyright infringement action involving a “Rosie the Riveter” design because the moving party failed to prove that there was no “genuine issue” for trial. The Court found that, on the facts and law,

Summary Judgment Denied in a Riveting Rosie Copyright Battle Read More »

Importance of Brand Strength: The Arc of Confusion in Physio Health Trademark

IP Decisions /

On February 14, 2025, the Federal Court (per Fuhrer J.) found that Joanna Habbous, owner of the registered trademark PHYSIOHEALTH STUDIOS, had established infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill against Arc Physio Health Ltd. The application was, however, dismissed against the named personal Respondents. Habbous v. Arc Physio Health Ltd., 2025 FC 297 Background Ms.

Importance of Brand Strength: The Arc of Confusion in Physio Health Trademark Read More »

Six-Year Limitation Period Applies to Patent Infringement Claims Filed in Alberta Court

IP Decisions /

The Alberta Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) held that the six-year limitation period in the Patent Act applies to infringement actions filed in the Alberta court, not the two-year period prescribed by provincial law. The plaintiff’s claim was not statute-barred and was remitted to the trial court for continued litigation. JL Energy Transportation

Six-Year Limitation Period Applies to Patent Infringement Claims Filed in Alberta Court Read More »