This Judgment and Reasons dealt with an application for judicial review brought by Galderma in respect of a decision by the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (the “Board”) which found that the invention of Canadian Patent 2,478,237 pertained to, or could be used for, Galderma’s product DIFFERIN.

This was an appeal of a section 45 proceeding raised against three registered trademarks owned by Coors, related to the marketing of Miller High Life beer as “The Champagne of Beers.” Despite Coors not providing evidence of use, the Registrar of Trademarks maintained the registrations, finding that special circumstances excused non-use. The Federal Court upheld the Registrar’s finding.

The Defendant had a history of appointing lawyers and then not communicating with them, resulting in a succession of lawyers seeking to be removed from the record.

This is an appeal of a Federal Court decision (2022 FC 62) regarding an action brought pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, S.O.R./93-133.

This is an appeal of a Federal Court decision (2022 FC 1218) regarding an action brought pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, S.O.R./93-133.

The defendants, Sandoz and Sun Pharma, are alleging invalidity of patents contained in a filing by the plaintiff under s 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations SOR/93-133 (the “Regulations”).

This decision arises in the context of an underlying copyright infringement action.

In this decision, the Court granted a motion for security for costs under Rule 416(1), brought by certain defendants to a copyright infringement action.

This decision dealt with Apotex’s appeal of the Federal Court’s decision in 2022 FC 107, which was in relation to an action brought under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations

The case revolves around a dispute between Access Copyright and the Plaintiffs, a group of educational institutions. The primary issues concern whether the Plaintiffs were licensees of Access Copyright from 2013 to 2015 and therefore liable to pay tariff royalties for that period.