Markwell Clarizio LLP

Menu
Contact Us

patents

Federal Court Goes All-In on Claim Construction in Assessing Patentable Subject Matter

IP Decisions /

Co-authored with Adam Haller On November 12, 2025, the Federal Court (per Whyte Nowak J.) held that the Commissioner of Patents (the “Commissioner”) made several errors of law in finding that an application for a “Method for Playing a Card Game” did not qualify as patentable subject matter under the Patent Act. The Court remitted […]

Federal Court Goes All-In on Claim Construction in Assessing Patentable Subject Matter Read More »

Common Design Infringement Finds its Footing in Canada

IP Decisions /

In the latest chapter of the Adeia Guides Inc. (formerly “Rovi”) (“Adeia”) and Videotron Ltd. (“Videotron”) patent infringement battle, Adeia alleged that Videotron infringed four patents within the same family related to digital entertainment technologies. Videotron denied infringement and counterclaimed for invalidity on the basis of anticipation, obviousness, and in the case of one patent,

Common Design Infringement Finds its Footing in Canada Read More »

The FCA Digs Into Downhole Hydraulic Fracturing Patent

IP Decisions /

Co-authored by Delara Emtyazi (Student-at-Law) In a decision issued October 20, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Walker J.A. with Stratas J.A. and Monaghan J.A. concurring) (“FCA”) held that the Federal Court (per McVeigh J) erred in construing the claims of Kobold Corporation’s (“Kobold”) Canadian Patent No. 3,027,571 (“‘571 Patent”) and as a result,

The FCA Digs Into Downhole Hydraulic Fracturing Patent Read More »

Timing is Everything: FCA Affirms OSIP’s Timing Interpretation in Patent Register Dispute

IP Decisions /

  On August 8, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) held that Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”), a biosimilar manufacturer, was not required to address Bayer Inc.’s (“Bayer”) newly issued patent (the “315 Patent”) for EYLEA (aflibercept) under the PM(NOC) Regulations because it had not been added to the Patent Register when Amgen’s New Drug Submission

Timing is Everything: FCA Affirms OSIP’s Timing Interpretation in Patent Register Dispute Read More »

McCain’s Patent Action Zapped By Pulsed Electric Field

IP Decisions /

On June 13, 2025, the Federal Court (per McHaffie J) held that J.R. Simplot Company (“Simplot”) did not infringe a patent owned by McCain Foods (“McCain”) by applying an electric field to uncooked potatoes before cutting them into French fries. McCain owned Canadian Patent No. 2,412,841 (“Patent”) until its expiry in 2021. The Patent claimed

McCain’s Patent Action Zapped By Pulsed Electric Field Read More »

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 »

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 »

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 »