Markwell Clarizio LLP

Menu
Contact Us

canada

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 »

Commissioner’s Refusal to Reinstate a Patent Set Aside Due to Deficiencies in Conducting the Two-Stage “Due Care” Inquiry

IP Decisions /

Co-written with Emily Papsin The Federal Court (per Zinn J.) set aside a decision by the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) refusing to reinstate Matco Tools Corporation’s (“Matco”) patent application which had been deemed abandoned for failure to pay maintenance fees. The Court found that the Commissioner did not conduct the requisite two-stage inquiry to assess

Commissioner’s Refusal to Reinstate a Patent Set Aside Due to Deficiencies in Conducting the Two-Stage “Due Care” Inquiry Read More »

Court holds that Health Canada patent listing delay is reasonable

IP Decisions /

The Federal Court (O’Reilly J.) dismissed an application for judicial review brought by Bayer Inc. (“Bayer”).  The Court found that the Minister of Health (the “Minister”) was not unreasonable in not determining the Bayer patent’s eligibility for listing on the patent register the same day it was received for consideration. Bayer Inc. v. Amgen Canada

Court holds that Health Canada patent listing delay is reasonable Read More »

From Reel to Real: The Importance of Prior Use Evidence in Passing Off Cases

IP Decisions /

On January 3, 2025, the Federal Court (per McVeigh J) dismissed an application alleging passing off of the unregistered trademark “Indican Pictures” because the Applicant did not establish use of its mark prior to the Respondent beginning to use its allegedly confusing marks. 2K4 Inc. (Indican Pictures) v. Indiecan Entertainment Inc., 2025 FC 20 Background

From Reel to Real: The Importance of Prior Use Evidence in Passing Off Cases Read More »

Nordik’s Appeal of Obviousness Finding for its Snow Plow Patents Gets Blown Over

IP Decisions /

The Federal Court of Appeal (per Locke J.A. with Leblanc J.A. and Pamel J.A. concurring) (“FCA”) held that the Federal Court (per St.-Louis J.) did not err in finding that several claims of Nordik Blades’ (“Nordik”) three patents on snowplow blades were invalid for obviousness. Usinage Pro-24 Inc. v. Valley Blades Ltd., 2025 FCA 4

Nordik’s Appeal of Obviousness Finding for its Snow Plow Patents Gets Blown Over Read More »

Blaze Fire’d Up Over Carbone’s Confusing Trademark Applications

IP Decisions, Trademarks /

In a decision by Fuhrer J., the Federal Court allowed an appeal against the Registrar’s decision to register a trademark owned by Carbone Restaurant Group Ltd. (“Carbone”), after the Trademarks Opposition Board (“TMOB”) had rejected an opposition by Blaze Pizza, LLC. (“Blaze”)   Blaze Pizza, LLC v. Carbone Restaurant Group Ltd., 2024 FC 1770 Background

Blaze Fire’d Up Over Carbone’s Confusing Trademark Applications Read More »

Causation and Other Factors to Consider in an Accounting of Profits

IP Decisions /

Lafrenière J. of the Federal Court, acting as a Referee in a reference under Rule 153(1) of the Federal Courts Rules,SOR/98-106 (“Rules”), recently issued an interim report on the quantification of profits made by Travelway Group International Ltd. (“Travelway”) through the sale of travel accessories including luggage (the “Infringing Products”) that were passed off as

Causation and Other Factors to Consider in an Accounting of Profits Read More »

Litigating Trademark Disputes in Canada – What IP Practitioners Should Know

Trademarks /

The process of litigating trademark disputes in Canada bears many similarities to other common law jurisdictions, in particular the United States. However, there are some unique aspects of Canadian procedure that IP practitioners in other jurisdictions should know. This short article provides a brief overview of how trademark disputes are litigated in Canada. 1.                  Trademark

Litigating Trademark Disputes in Canada – What IP Practitioners Should Know Read More »

FCA holds that Confidential Disclosure does not Anticipate. Foreign Company is Liable for Infringement by “Common Cause”

IP Decisions /

On September 27, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) affirmed that four patents owned by AngelCare Canada (“AngelCare”) are valid and were infringed by the manufacture and sale of diaper pail cassettes by Munchkin Baby Canada Inc. (“Munchkin Canada”) and its US parent, Munchkin, Inc. (“Munchkin USA”). The decision raises important issues relating to

FCA holds that Confidential Disclosure does not Anticipate. Foreign Company is Liable for Infringement by “Common Cause” Read More »

Federal Court invalidates Four Patents for Overbreadth, Inutility, Anticipation and/or Obviousness

IP Decisions /

On September 13, 2024, the Federal Court (per Manson J.) held that four patents owned by ProSlide Technology Inc. (“ProSlide”) were invalid, and that three of those patents were not infringed by the manufacture of waterslide component parts in Canada by WhiteWater West Industries, Ltd. (“WhiteWater”).  The case turned largely on the facts but raised

Federal Court invalidates Four Patents for Overbreadth, Inutility, Anticipation and/or Obviousness Read More »