Articles

CBA Members

Intellectual
Property

CBA Intellectual Property Section

Articles are published by the Intellectual Property Section. Members interested in posting articles are encouraged to send them to the Section by email: CBAI_P@cba.org.

Today
Today

Case summary: Law to be applied in evidentiary issues

  • October 30, 2023
  • Cheryl Cheung

The plaintiff, Fromfroid S.A., sued the defendants, 1048547 Ontario Inc. (better known as Skotidakis) and Frimasco Inc., for infringing Fromfroid’s Canadian Patent No. 2,301,753.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Costs award in patent infringement case

  • October 30, 2023
  • Cheryl Cheung

These reasons related to a decision on costs following a patent infringement judgment (citation: 2023 FC 925). In the main action, the plaintiff, Fromfroid S.A., prevailed and was awarded regular and punitive damages against the defendants,1048547 Ontario Inc. (better known as Skotidakis) and Frimasco Inc.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Intellectual property proceedings do not always entitle parties to elevated costs awards under Rule 407 of the Federal Court Rules

  • August 23, 2023
  • Eric Li

This decision was an assessment of costs arising from Zara Natural Stones Inc.’s (“Zara”) successful appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal. The Assessment Officer applied Rule 407 of the Federal Courts Rules (“Rules”) and assessed costs in accordance with Column III of the table to Tariff B.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Federal Court grants application to add inventor

  • August 23, 2023
  • Eric Li

This case involved Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Regeneron”) application pursuant to s 52 of the Patent Act (“Act”) to vary the records concerning the registration for their patent so as to name an additional inventor.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Federal Court refuses motion to compel answers to questions objected to during examination for discovery

  • August 23, 2023
  • Eric Li

This case involved a proceeding pursuant to s 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) brought a motion pursuant to Rule 97 of the Federal Courts Rules to compel answers to questions that were objected to during examination for discovery of one of Juno Pharmaceuticals Corp.’s (“Juno”) fact witnesses. Allergan grouped these questions under four categories, A, B, C, and D.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Evidence of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances required for motions to adjourn under Rule 36 of the Federal Courts Rules

  • August 23, 2023
  • Eric Li

This decision concerned a motion by the Plaintiffs under Rule 36 of the Federal Courts Rules to request a six-month adjournment of the trial of the underlying trademark action. The Plaintiffs requested the adjournment on the basis that its recently retained expert witness needed additional time to prepare her report.

Intellectual Property