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.

This is an appeal under section 56 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) by the Applicant, THI Canada Inc., of a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board (“TMOB”), refusing THI’s opposition to the registration of a Trademark Application owned by the Respondent, King Rack Industrial Co., Ltd.

This appeal is with respect to the AVIREX Mark owned by Centric. The Mark was expunged on August 26, 2022, in a decision by the Registrar, after issuing its Notice under section 45 of the Trademark Act. Centric appealed the decision with new evidence, including two affidavits, claiming special circumstances to excuse the absence of the use of the Mark.

The underlying action was a patent infringement claim, which was struck by the Court on its own motion. The Court detailed various procedural Orders setting timelines which were repeatedly disregarded, leading to the Court issuing the Order proprio motu dismissing the action.