Articles

CBA Members

Propriété
intellectuelle

Section du droit de la propriété intellectuelle de l’ABC

Les articles de la Section du droit de la propriĂ©tĂ© intellectuelle de l’ABC sont publiĂ©s par la Section du droit de la propriĂ©tĂ© intellectuelle. Les membres qui souhaitent proposer des articles sont invitĂ©s Ă  les envoyer Ă  la section Ă  : droitproprieteintellectuelleABC@cba.org.

AujourdĘĽhui
AujourdĘĽhui

Case summary: Federal Court allows, in part, reply evidence that serves in the interest of justice

  • 20 fĂ©vrier 2024
  • Victoria Kolt and Pablo Tseng

Pursuant to an action wherein Takeda Canada Inc. (“Takeda”) alleges that Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) has infringed Canadian Patent No. 2,570,916 (the “916 Patent”), Takeda brought a motion for reply evidence under s.6(1) of the PMNOC Regulations. Takeda sought leave to have its expert, Dr. Timko, provide reply evidence to an expert report produced by Apotex’s experts, Dr. Rowlings and Dr. Davies.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Court holds that defendants in motions for security for costs should not make selective disclosure of evidence

  • 20 fĂ©vrier 2024
  • David Schnittker

The defendants in a patent infringement action brought a motion for security for costs under rule 416(1)(b). The defendants alleged that they had reason to believe that the plaintiff would have insufficient assets in Canada available to pay the defendants’ costs if ordered to do so. The Court ultimately granted the defendants’ motion.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Assessment Officer provides detailed assessment of assessable services under the Tariff

  • 20 fĂ©vrier 2024
  • Jenny Hepditch and Tessa Clarke

This is an assessment of costs pursuant to an Order of the Federal Court awarding costs to the Defendant (Awesense) in the Plaintiff's (dTechs) action, to be assessed in accordance with the high end of Column IV of Tariff B, with costs double the Tariff rate after the date of the Defendants’ settlement offers.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: AbbVie Corporation v. Jamp Pharma Corporation

  • 20 fĂ©vrier 2024
  • Ken Clark and Jonathan Marun-Batista

In a long, 600 paragraph decision, the Federal Court held that one of three patents for a formulation of adalimumab, a monoclonal antibody used in treating various autoimmune diseases, was valid and being infringed upon by a biosimilar product, SIMLANDI.

Propriété intellectuelle

Prima facie and reasonable inference remains a low standard

  • 07 fĂ©vrier 2024
  • Ben Pearson

This appeal concerned a decision of the Federal Court that dismissed allegations by the appellant, Sandoz Canada Inc. (“Sandoz”), that Canadian Patent No. 2,659,770 (the “770 Patent”) was invalid.

Propriété intellectuelle