Articles

CBA Members

Propriété
intellectuelle

Section du droit de la propriété intellectuelle de l’ABC

Les articles de la Section du droit de la propriĂ©tĂ© intellectuelle de l’ABC sont publiĂ©s par la Section du droit de la propriĂ©tĂ© intellectuelle. Les membres qui souhaitent proposer des articles sont invitĂ©s Ă  les envoyer Ă  la section Ă  : droitproprieteintellectuelleABC@cba.org.

AujourdĘĽhui
AujourdĘĽhui

Case summary: Permissible variations of a registered trademark

  • 01 novembre 2023
  • Julianna Felendzer

The Respondent initiated a summary cancellation proceeding under section 45 of the Trademarks Act, RSC 1985 c T-13 (the “TMA”) against the Applicant (“NBCL”) for their registered mark “NORTH BREWING.” The Registrar of Trademarks sent the cancellation notice of NBCL’s registered mark on May 31, 2021.

Propriété intellectuelle

Assessment Officers assess costs, but cannot award costs

  • 31 octobre 2023
  • Will Boyer

In a 2021 trial decision, two BMS patents were found to be valid and infringed by generic products to be made and sold by Pharmascience and Sandoz. In the subsequent costs decision, the Court declined to fix costs in a lump sum amount, and instead awarded costs at the upper end of Column V of Tariff B to be determined on an assessment.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Federal Court allows extension of time to serve notice of inter partes testing and to conduct testing, opposing party compensated for financial prejudice

  • 31 octobre 2023
  • Jenny Thistle and Tessa Clarke (Articling Student)

In this case, the Defendants (JAMP) successfully brought a motion for an extension of time to serve notice and conduct inter partes testing in the context of two proceedings commenced by the Plaintiffs (GILEAD) pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

Propriété intellectuelle

Case summary: Motions for summary trial to be denied only in rare circumstances

  • 30 octobre 2023

Janssen Inc., and Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (collectively, the “Applicants”) brought a motion to oppose the scheduling of a motion for summary trial that Sandoz Canada Inc. (the “Respondent”) intended to bring under section 213(1) of the Federal Courts Rules (the “Rules”).

Propriété intellectuelle