This case involves civil contempt proceedings against Antonio Macciacchera for violating court Orders related to SSTV Services.

On application by the Defendant for summary judgment, the Court dismissed the claims against the individual Defendant and one of the corporate Defendants, detailing reasons why the Plaintiff has not raised any proper cause of action.

In the context of two patent infringement actions under the PM(NOC) Regulations, the Defendant, Sandoz Canada Inc., brought motions for an Order requiring the Plaintiffs to serve fact evidence pertaining to the invention story of their patents, including any inventor evidence, prior to the date by which the Defendant’s in-chief expert reports on invalidity were to be served.

This case involves an appeal under section 56 of the Trademarks Act, in which the Opposition Board refused an application for the trademark FORNO MAGNIFICO & Design (“ICI Trademark”) in association with pizza ovens and pizza crusts.

The Defendants’ use of the Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks ENERGIZER and ENERGIZER MAX in comparative advertising on packaging labels or stickers for the very products listed in the registrations contravenes section 22 of the Trademarks Act.

Janssen sought judicial review of a finding of the Office of Submissions and Intellectual Property that Canadian Patent No. 3,113,837 was ineligible to be added to the Patent Register against STELARA with respect to two supplemental new drug submissions.

Burberry Limited and Chanel Limited (“Plaintiffs”) brought an action in Federal Court against Juvilyn Ward and Kevin Ward (“Defendants”), for importing, offering for sale and selling counterfeit BURBERRY and CHANEL clothing and fashion accessories.

After a decision in which the Federal Court found infringement of two patents and issued an injunction against GreenBlue, DeepRoot brought contempt proceedings in the Federal Court in respect of GreenBlue’s “design-around.”

In this decision, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a finding of patent infringement and validity, and a cross-appeal of the judgment awarding compensation on the basis of a reasonable royalty.

The Defendant in a patent action, Sandoz Canada Inc., brought a motion to compel the Plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, to answer questions refused on the discovery of inventors under Rule 237(4) of the Federal Courts Rules (the “Rules”).