Markwell Clarizio LLP

Menu
Contact Us

patents

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 »

Federal Court invalidates Four Patents for Overbreadth, Inutility, Anticipation and/or Obviousness

IP Decisions /

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

Federal Court invalidates Four Patents for Overbreadth, Inutility, Anticipation and/or Obviousness Read More »

Rovi #2: Federal Court of Appeal Confirms Interactive Television Program Guide Patents Are Invalid (Rovi ats. Bell and Telus)

IP Decisions /

  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

Rovi #2: Federal Court of Appeal Confirms Interactive Television Program Guide Patents Are Invalid (Rovi ats. Bell and Telus) Read More »

Rovi #1: Federal Court of Appeal Confirms Interactive Television Program Guide Patents Are Invalid (Rovi ats. Videotron)

IP Decisions /

  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

Rovi #1: Federal Court of Appeal Confirms Interactive Television Program Guide Patents Are Invalid (Rovi ats. Videotron) Read More »

FCA holds that Anticipation by Publication is a Difficult Defence to Establish

IP Decisions /

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 »

Federal Court finds Jamp’s nintedanib capsules to infringe Boehringer’s use patent but not its formulation patent

IP Decisions /

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

Federal Court finds Jamp’s nintedanib capsules to infringe Boehringer’s use patent but not its formulation patent Read More »

Federal Court Makes Rare Holding that Patent Claims are Invalid for Ambiguity

IP Decisions /

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 »

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

IP Decisions /

 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 »

Red Maple Manufacturing Inc. v. Red Maple Bio Inc. 2024 FC 817

IP Decisions /

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 »