RE/MAX brought a Rule 51 motion appealing an order dismissing RE/MAX’s motion to amend its statement of claim. In the underlying dispute, RE/MAX is suing Save Max Real Estate for trademark infringement and passing off.

In Fibrogen, Inc. v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., the Federal Court of Appeal set aside an order requiring FibroGen to file fact witness statements from a discontinued action. The statements were designated confidential or highly confidential information pursuant to a confidentiality agreement.

In this matter, the Federal Court of Appeal reversed a Federal Court decision granting judgment to the applicant in the summary judgment process.

Bell Media enforced Anton Piller orders against the Defendants. This is a motion for contempt for not obeying the Anton Piller orders. The Federal Court granted the Plaintiff’s show cause motion for contempt, concluding that a prima facie case of contempt was made out.

No making, constructing or selling. Does the exclusive right to use give you anything more?

The plaintiffs, Janssen Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica, commenced these two actions (Court File Nos. T-1441-20 and T-558-22) against Pharmascience Inc. pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance Regulations) pertaining to the medication INVEGA SUSTENNA^®, which contains the active ingredient paliperidone palmitate.

The Appellants brought a s. 6(1) action under the PM(NOC) Regulations, asserting infringement of a patent relating to sustained release compositions of fampridine used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. In the decision under appeal, the Federal Court had found four claims invalid for anticipation and all of the asserted claims invalid for obviousness.

In an action brought under s. 6(1) of the PM(NOC) Regulations, the Defendant brought a motion for leave to amend its Statement of Defence, less than 15 months before trial, both to make certain corrections and clarifications and to assert new invalidity defences, where previously, only the Gilette defence had been raised.

This decision relates to a motion by the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim, Pattison, to exclude a reply report of an expert that was submitted by the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim, T-Rex. The Court excluded the report on the basis that only a new matter that could not reasonably have been anticipated can be made the subject of a valid reply.

This decision relates to a motion for an increase in security for costs pursuant to rule 416(6) of the Federal Courts Rules. It was the second motion for an increase in security for costs sought by Pattison in this patent infringement action.