Between The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, Robert Gazzale, Lisa Kramer and Ai Taniguchi v. Easy Group Inc. D/B/A/ Easy Education, Easy 4 Education Canada Inc., Easy 4.0 Education Inc., Easy 4.0 Education UTSC Inc., 2024 FC 205 (CanLII)

Google appeals the decisions of Justice Zinn, which found that Sonos did not infringe claim 7 of Google’s Patent No. 2,545,150, and the subsequent decision for Google to pay Sono’s costs.

The Defendant, Whitewater, appeals a decision of Associate Justice Crinson, which denied its request to amend its Statement of Defence to add allegations of invalidity due to insufficient disclosure.

McDowell brought an ex parte motion in writing to the Federal Court, seeking an order for default judgment against the defendant, “A Drip of Honey.” McDowell alleged that A Drip of Honey used trademarks that closely resembled her marks, amounting to trademark infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill.

Novartis commenced an application in the Federal Court claiming trademark infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill.

This case is a simplified action for copyright and moral rights infringement, which proceeds with a list of documents instead of an affidavit of documents. This case clarifies the timing of when this list of documents should be served.

This is a motion within a case alleging copyright infringement of the Plaintiff’s photographic works. The Plaintiff filed this motion to submit a reply to the Defendant’s expert report.

Takeda Canada Inc. (“Takeda”) alleged that Apotex, Inc. (“Apotex”) infringed its patent for a pharmaceutical composition, in making, constructing, using or selling its dexlansoprazole capsules (the “Apotex Product”).

This case involves an appeal under subsection 56(1) of the Trademarks Act. The dispute centers around two trademark registrations: No. TMA 894,117 (Cooperation Emblem/ swirl design or Mark 1) and No. TMA 891,721 (Sustainability Emblem or Mark 2) [collectively “the Marks”].

n Pharmascience Inc v Janssen Inc, 2024 FC 335 (the “Discovery Motion”) and Pharmascience Inc v Janssen Inc, 2024 FC 336 (the “Motion to Substitute a Discovery Witness”), the Plaintiff, Pharmascience Inc (“Pharmascience”), sought the production of privileged or otherwise withheld information and the substitution of the corporate representative from the Defendants, Janssen Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, and BTF International Ltd (collectively, “Janssen”).