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 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 »
On August 8, 2024, the Federal Court (per Furlanetto J.) held that a patent directed to nintedanib for use in the prevention or treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (“IPF”) was valid and infringed, while a patent directed to formulations of nintedanib was not infringed. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. et al v. Jamp Pharma Corporation, 2024
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 »
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 »
On May 29, 2024, the Federal Court (Whyte Nowak J.) granted Red Maple Manufacturing Inc.’s (the “Applicant”) appeal pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Trademarks Act. The Applicant appealed a decision from the Trademarks Opposition Board (“the Board”) ordering the removal of certain goods from the Applicant’s Trademark Registration. Red Maple Manufacturing Inc. v. Red
Red Maple Manufacturing Inc. v. Red Maple Bio Inc. 2024 FC 817 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 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 »
