This decision concerned a motion for summary judgment by the Defendant under Rules 213 and 215 of the Federal Courts Rules. The Defendant seeks a declaration concerning the ownership over copyright, industrial design and trademark rights flowing from a fifty-fifty profit-sharing arrangement entered into by the parties orally.

This decision concerned a patent infringement action brought under s 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. The Plaintiffs’ patents at issue, Canadian Patent Nos. 2,591,083 (the “083 Patent”) and 2,726,267 (the “267 Patent”), relate to the innovative drug nintedanib, which is used to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (“IPF”), and marketed under the brand name OFEV®.

This decision concerned a motion brought by the Plaintiff to compel the Defendant to answer questions from a Further Written Examination arising out of the Plaintiff’s amended pleadings for the underlying patent infringement action.

This decision concerned an appeal from an order of the Federal Court granting the Respondent’s motion to be added as a defendant in the underlying patent infringement action pursuant to Rule 104(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Rules.

This decision concerned the Federal Court of Appeal’s refusal to exercise its discretion to hear an appeal that has become moot.

Huang owned a 2008 trademark registration for Chinese characters, which translated to “do not worry in Canada.” In 2017, Huang filed an extension application to add book publishing and website hosting services to its 2008 registration. The extension application registered in 2018. In 2020, Huang’s original 2008 registration was expunged for non-use; the extension registration however remained.

IFIT sued Safe Sweat for trademark infringement in Federal Court by way of application. The relief sought by IFIT included damages, or alternatively, an accounting of profits. The parties served their affidavit evidence.

This decision concerned an appeal of Associate Judge (AJ) Crinson’s Order refusing the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend its pleadings. The Plaintiffs’ appeal of that decision was dismissed.

This decision by Justice Fuhrer concerned an appeal of Associate Judge (AJ) Crinson’s Order refusing the Plaintiffs’ motion under Rule 227 for the Defendants to deliver a further and better affidavits of documents and produce all relevant documents in their possession or, alternatively, entitling the Plaintiffs to cross-examine each of the Defendants on the creation of their affidavits of documents.

This is an appeal of a Federal Court (“FC”) decision (2022 FC 874) regarding an action brought pursuant to subsection 57(1) of the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4. In that action, the applicants, Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Rovi”) sought an accounting of profits from Videotron Ltd. (“Videotron”), for infringement of four Canadian patents owned by Rovi.