The Appellant brought a motion for an order to vary the Court’s judgment in Greenblue Urban North America Inc. v. Deeproot Green Infrastructure, LLC, 2023 FCA 184 (the Judgment).

Messrs. Macciachera brought a motion for leave to represent the corporate appellants of which they are officers. This motion was brought in relation to an appeal of copyright determination between the parties.

The defendant, Jamp Pharma, is 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”).

Multiple decisions of the Federal Court—in relation to the underlying action and various motions on the file—awarded costs to the defendant, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro).

Pursuant to an action wherein Takeda Canada Inc. (“Takeda”) alleges that Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) has infringed Canadian Patent No. 2,570,916 (the “916 Patent”), Takeda brought a motion for reply evidence under s.6(1) of the PMNOC Regulations. Takeda sought leave to have its expert, Dr. Timko, provide reply evidence to an expert report produced by Apotex’s experts, Dr. Rowlings and Dr. Davies.

The defendants in a patent infringement action brought a motion for security for costs under rule 416(1)(b). The defendants alleged that they had reason to believe that the plaintiff would have insufficient assets in Canada available to pay the defendants’ costs if ordered to do so. The Court ultimately granted the defendants’ motion.

In the context of proceedings started pursuant to s. 6(1) of the PM(NOC) Regulations, the plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss the defendants’ challenges to the plaintiff’s Affidavit of Documents.

This is an assessment of costs pursuant to an Order of the Federal Court awarding costs to the Defendant (Awesense) in the Plaintiff's (dTechs) action, to be assessed in accordance with the high end of Column IV of Tariff B, with costs double the Tariff rate after the date of the Defendants’ settlement offers.

In this matter, end users of allegedly infringing patents were sued but not the manufacturer of the products.

Janssen Inc. (“Janssen”) late-filed a patent list in respect of an SNDS (SNDS 224739).