Skip to main content

Propriété intellectuelle

Two IT professionals reviewing data on a laptop in a modern tech environment

Propriété intellectuelleTenez-vous au courant du droit et de la pratique en matière de questions lies à la propriété intellectuelle en examinant le droit de propriété, le droit d’octroi de licences ainsi que les droits de protection et de transfert de propriété intellectuelle.

Inscrivez-vous dès aujourd’hui

Derniers programmes et initiatives

Article | 03 décembre 2025

Case Summary: Federal Court Grants Motion for Default Judgment on Plaintiff’s Second Attempt

This decision concerns a motion for default judgment brought by the Plaintiffs, Dermaspark Products Inc. (“Dermaspark”) and Pollogen Ltd (“Pollogen”), in the context of a trademark infringement action. This motion was the second such motion in this action, as the Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs’ first motion for default judgment on the basis that there was insufficient evidence in the record to grant their requested relief (reported in 2025 FC 979).

Article | 03 décembre 2025

Case summary: Federal Court decides patent squabble

This appeal concerned the interpretation and application of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the “Regulations”), specifically the timing of the addition of patents to the Patent Register that a second person must address when seeking market access. Bayer Inc. (“Bayer”), the appellant, submitted a patent list in relation to its Canadian Patent No. 2,970,315 for its drug EYLEA on August 22, 2023.

Article | 03 décembre 2025

Case summary: Federal Court clarifies costs principles in copyright infringement dispute

This decision of the Federal Court deals with costs following a major copyright infringement judgment in Yelda Haber Ve Görsel Yayincilik A.S. v. GLWiZ Inc., where the defendants were earlier found liable for $5,958,000 in statutory damages for infringing twenty-two of the plaintiff’s television programs and its live channel. The parties could not agree on costs, prompting the Court to determine whether a lump sum award or tariff-based costs should apply.