Markwell Clarizio LLP

intellectual property

Court Overturns TMOB Decision Based on New Evidence of Earlier and Continuous Use

The Federal Court (Tsimberis J.) recently held that the Applicant, F.I.A.L. Finanziaria Industrie Alto Lario, S.P.A. (“Applicant” or “Fial”) is entitled to register the trademark, GALPERTI pursuant to ss. 38(2)(c) and 16(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) in an appeal of a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board (“Board”) that had refused Fial’s application […]

Court Overturns TMOB Decision Based on New Evidence of Earlier and Continuous Use Read More »

Federal Court Grants an Application to Add Inventors and an Owner to an Issued Patent

 On May 31, 2024, the Federal Court (Tsimberis J.) granted an application to correct the inventorship of an issued patent. The decision provides a clear explanation of the relevant legal principles (Patent Act, s. 52) and the type of evidence that must be led to obtain relief. Smith Sport Optics, Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of

Federal Court Grants an Application to Add Inventors and an Owner to an Issued Patent Read More »

Court Dismisses Passing Off and Expungement Action After Summary Trial

This was a motion for summary trial in a passing off and expungement case between competitors in the mobile video game market. The Court (per Fuhrer J.) held that summary trial was an appropriate vehicle for deciding the Plaintiff’s claims for passing off and expungement of the Defendant’s registration – and that those claims were

Court Dismisses Passing Off and Expungement Action After Summary Trial Read More »

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

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

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 »

Claims to Dosing Regimens May Not Be Prohibited Methods of Medical Treatment: A Question of “Whether” and “How”

In Pharmascience v Janssen, the Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing for the Court) held that the claims in Janssen’s patent to a dosing regimen are not prohibited as a method of medical treatment. Pharmascience v Janssen, 2024 FCA 23   The Prohibition Against Patenting Methods of Medical Treatment The patentability of methods of

Claims to Dosing Regimens May Not Be Prohibited Methods of Medical Treatment: A Question of “Whether” and “How” Read More »

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

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 »

Federal Court Determines the Inventive Concept of an Improved Drug Formulation

In this Federal Court decision (per Pentney J.), the plaintiffs Allergan and AbbVie (“Allergan”) were successful in upholding the validity of their 691 Patent. The defendant (“Juno”) conceded that its proposed generic drug product would infringe the 691 Patent. The main issues before the Court were obviousness and sufficiency. Allergan v Juno, 2023 FC 1686

Federal Court Determines the Inventive Concept of an Improved Drug Formulation Read More »

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

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 »