Markwell Clarizio LLP

Menu
Contact Us

infringement

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 »

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 »

Federal Court Re-Iterates that the Fair Dealing Exception to Copyright Infringement is Fact Specific

IP Decisions /

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

Federal Court Re-Iterates that the Fair Dealing Exception to Copyright Infringement is Fact Specific Read More »

Federal Court of Appeal Interprets “Use” in Section 42 of the Patent Act

IP Decisions /

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 »

Federal Court Finds Takeda’s Patent Not infringed and Invalid for Inutility and Insufficiency

IP Decisions /

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

Federal Court Finds Takeda’s Patent Not infringed and Invalid for Inutility and Insufficiency Read More »

Generic Manufacturers Induce Patent Infringement by Recommending Use of a Patented Dosing Regimen in their Product Monographs

IP Decisions /

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. –

Generic Manufacturers Induce Patent Infringement by Recommending Use of a Patented Dosing Regimen in their Product Monographs Read More »

Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part III

IP Decisions /

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 »

Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part II

IP Decisions /

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 »

Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part I

IP Decisions /

Co-written with Dino Clarizio In a complex patent infringement action involving five NCS patents and one Kobold patent relating to tools and sleeves used in oil well drilling, the Federal Court (per McVeigh J.) held that NCS’s patents were invalid and not infringed, and that Kobold’s patent was valid and infringed by NCS. As a

Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part I Read More »

Inducing Infringement with a Skinny Label: FCA Weighs-In

IP Decisions /

The Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing for the Court) held that Apotex will induce infringement of patent claims to a combination of two active ingredients to treat a condition even though Apotex is seeking approval to market only one of the active ingredients as a monotherapy for the same condition. https://lnkd.in/gkb9faVi Janssen is the

Inducing Infringement with a Skinny Label: FCA Weighs-In Read More »