Takeda Canada Inc. (“Takeda”) alleged that Apotex, Inc. (“Apotex”) infringed its patent for a pharmaceutical composition, in making, constructing, using or selling its dexlansoprazole capsules (the “Apotex Product”).

This case involves an appeal under subsection 56(1) of the Trademarks Act. The dispute centers around two trademark registrations: No. TMA 894,117 (Cooperation Emblem/ swirl design or Mark 1) and No. TMA 891,721 (Sustainability Emblem or Mark 2) [collectively “the Marks”].

n Pharmascience Inc v Janssen Inc, 2024 FC 335 (the “Discovery Motion”) and Pharmascience Inc v Janssen Inc, 2024 FC 336 (the “Motion to Substitute a Discovery Witness”), the Plaintiff, Pharmascience Inc (“Pharmascience”), sought the production of privileged or otherwise withheld information and the substitution of the corporate representative from the Defendants, Janssen Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, and BTF International Ltd (collectively, “Janssen”).

This patent infringement decision relates a generic version of METOJECT pre-filled syringes. The asserted claims relate to high concentration formulations of methotrexate.

This decision from the FCA arises from a judicial review (JR) of the Minister of Health’s decision to not require the transferee of an NDS to serve a new NOA under the PM(NOC) Regulations.

This decision arises from a motion brought by the Defendants regarding questions refused by the Plaintiffs in examinations for discovery.

This decision concerns an appeal of a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks under section 45 of the Trademarks Act involving a registration for the FENESTRAE trademark. In the decision below, the Hearing Officer ordered that a number of goods and services be cancelled because evidence failed to establish use in association with a number of goods and services, but maintained others.

In the context of a section 8 action, the Federal Court denied Pharmascience’s appeal of Associate Judge Horne’s oral decision compelling Pharmascience to produce its financial statements since 2019.

On this appeal, the Court considered the scope of 64(2) of the Copyright Act and its application to moral rights.

The plaintiff in a patent infringement proceeding appealed a decision of the Case Management Judge denying their request that the defendant provide a better affidavit of documents.