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 […]
On May 6, 2024, Canada’s Standing Committee on Health (“HESA”) issued a report containing “ten recommendations on how the Government of Canada can enable the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (“PMPRB”) to more effectively carry out its mandate and implement its reforms” (“Report”). HESA called on the Government of Canada to “table a comprehensive response
Government of Canada Responds to Parliamentary Committee Report on PMPRB Reform Read More »
On August 6, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Gleason JA; Stratas and Monaghan JJA, concurring) held that two patents owned by Rovi Guides [Rovi] were invalid. Nonetheless, in obiter, the FCA provided clarification on the circumstances in which an accounting of profits and a permanent injunction are available as remedies for patent
On August 6, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Gleason JA; Stratas and Monaghan JJA, concurring) held that two patents owned by Rovi Guides [Rovi] were invalid for obviousness. Nonetheless, in obiter, the FCA held that the trial judge erred in several aspects of his remedial analysis, including the correct approach for deciding
On August 19, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Locke JA; Woods and Laskin JJ.A., concurring) held that a patent claiming a specific herbicide (flucarbazone sodium) for the selective control of wild oats was not anticipated by two prior patents disclosing genera of herbicides for a variety of uses. Agracity Crop v. Upl Na
FCA holds that Anticipation by Publication is a Difficult Defence to Establish Read More »
Co-authored by Emily Papsin The Federal Court recently held (per McHaffie J.) that the impugned claims of two related patents for an additive manufacturing process (3D printing) were invalid and not infringed because an essential element (“depletion layer”) was ambiguous. Tekna Plasma Systems Inc. v. AP&C Advanced Powders & Coatings Inc., 2024 FC 871 Background
Federal Court Makes Rare Holding that Patent Claims are Invalid for Ambiguity Read More »
Chambers and Partners has recently published its 2024 Life Sciences Global Practice Guide. Markwell Clarizio LLP is very pleased to have been invited to be the exclusive author of the Canadian sections of this comprehensive practice guide which is considered the “definitive global law guide offering comparative analysis from top ranked lawyers”. In the Canadian
The Federal Court (per St-Louis J.) held that the asserted claims of three patents owned by Nordik Blades (collectively, the “Nordik Patents”) are invalid on the basis of obviousness. However, the Court found that the asserted claims are not overbroad and the Nordik Patents are not void under section 53 of the Patent Act. The
Snowplow Patents are Snowed Under due to Federal Court Findings of Obviousness Read More »
The Federal Court (per Furlanetto J.) held that Takeda’s 916 Patent covering aspects of its DEXILANT® capsules is not infringed by Apotex’s proposed generic dexlansoprazole capsules and, in any event, is invalid for inutility (lack of sound prediction) and insufficiency. Takeda Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. – Federal Court (fct-cf.gc.ca) The Court’s infringement and validity
Some commentators have said the Inter Partes Review process and various U.S. Supreme Court decisions have recently made enforcement of patent rights in the United States more challenging. As a result, some patentees have looked abroad to places like Europe (especially Germany) to enforce their patent rights. But what about Canada? Why should an American
Litigating Patents in Canada Compared to the U.S.A. Read More »
