On March 20, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Locke J.A., Roussel J.A., and Heckman J.A.) (“FCA”) released an important decision in the patent dispute between ProSlide and WhiteWater, two competitors in the water slide industry. The ruling restores the validity of three of ProSlide’s patents relating to water slides but confirms that WhiteWater […]
Co-authored with Emily Johnston On November 28, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (Per Woods JA and Laskin JA) (“FCA”) held that the Federal Court (per Pallotta J) (“FC”) did not err in (1) enjoining Samsung Bioepis (“Samsung”) and Biogen, et al (collectively “Biogen”), as well as their licensees, from using the trademark BYOOVIZ in
Patients Are A Relevant Consumer in the Trademark Confusion Analysis For Biosimilars Read More »
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 »
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 »
On May 31, 2024, the Federal Court (Roy J) released its decision on the summary judgment motion brought by the Attorney General of Canada (“AGC”) on behalf of Parks Canada, in which he dismissed Blacklock’s Reporter’s (“BR”) copyright infringement action against the AGC. This matter is one of several related and contextually similar actions brought
The Federal Court of Appeal (per Heckman J.A.) dismissed an appeal by Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd. and Steelhead LNG Limited Partnership (collectively, “Steelhead”) from a summary trial judgment dismissing Steelhead’s patent infringement action. This appeal turned on the meaning of “use” under section 42 of the Patent Act. Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd v Arc Resources
Federal Court of Appeal Interprets “Use” in Section 42 of the Patent Act 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
In Apotex v Janssen (2024 FCA 9) and Pharmascience v Janssen (2024 FCA 10), the Federal Court of Appeal held that Apotex and Pharmascience would induce patent infringement by recommending that their respective generic products be sold and used according to the dosing regimen claimed in Janssen’s 335 Patent. Apotex Inc. v. Janssen Inc. –
Co-written with Dino Clarizio This is the third of a series of three posts discussing some of the issues addressed by the trial judge (McVeigh J.) in NCS v Kobold, 2023 FC 1486. The three issues we discuss are those that arise less frequently in patent cases. They are: Topic 1: Priority Date (Post #1)Topic
Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part III Read More »
Co-written with Dino Clarizio This is the second of a series of three posts discussing some of the issues addressed by the trial judge (McVeigh J.) in NCS v Kobold, 2023 FC 1486. The three issues we discuss are those that arise less frequently in patent cases. They are: Topic 1: Priority Dates (Post #1)Topic
Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part II Read More »
