Markwell Clarizio LLP

Author name: Jason Markwell

FCA holds that Confidential Disclosure does not Anticipate. Foreign Company is Liable for Infringement by “Common Cause”

On September 27, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) affirmed that four patents owned by AngelCare Canada (“AngelCare”) are valid and were infringed by the manufacture and sale of diaper pail cassettes by Munchkin Baby Canada Inc. (“Munchkin Canada”) and its US parent, Munchkin, Inc. (“Munchkin USA”). The decision raises important issues relating to […]

FCA holds that Confidential Disclosure does not Anticipate. Foreign Company is Liable for Infringement by “Common Cause” Read More »

Federal Court invalidates Four Patents for Overbreadth, Inutility, Anticipation and/or Obviousness

On September 13, 2024, the Federal Court (per Manson J.) held that four patents owned by ProSlide Technology Inc. (“ProSlide”) were invalid, and that three of those patents were not infringed by the manufacture of waterslide component parts in Canada by WhiteWater West Industries, Ltd. (“WhiteWater”).  The case turned largely on the facts but raised

Federal Court invalidates Four Patents for Overbreadth, Inutility, Anticipation and/or Obviousness Read More »

Government of Canada Responds to Parliamentary Committee Report on PMPRB Reform

On May 6, 2024, Canada’s Standing Committee on Health (“HESA”) issued a report containing “ten recommendations on how the Government of Canada can enable the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (“PMPRB”) to more effectively carry out its mandate and implement its reforms” (“Report”). HESA called on the Government of Canada to “table a comprehensive response

Government of Canada Responds to Parliamentary Committee Report on PMPRB Reform Read More »

Rovi #2: Federal Court of Appeal Confirms Interactive Television Program Guide Patents Are Invalid (Rovi ats. Bell and Telus)

  On August 6, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Gleason JA; Stratas and Monaghan JJA, concurring) held that two patents owned by Rovi Guides [Rovi] were invalid. Nonetheless, in obiter, the FCA provided clarification on the circumstances in which an accounting of profits and a permanent injunction are available as remedies for patent

Rovi #2: Federal Court of Appeal Confirms Interactive Television Program Guide Patents Are Invalid (Rovi ats. Bell and Telus) Read More »

Rovi #1: Federal Court of Appeal Confirms Interactive Television Program Guide Patents Are Invalid (Rovi ats. Videotron)

  On August 6, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Gleason JA; Stratas and Monaghan JJA, concurring) held that two patents owned by Rovi Guides [Rovi] were invalid for obviousness. Nonetheless, in obiter, the FCA held that the trial judge erred in several aspects of his remedial analysis, including the correct approach for deciding

Rovi #1: Federal Court of Appeal Confirms Interactive Television Program Guide Patents Are Invalid (Rovi ats. Videotron) Read More »

FCA holds that Anticipation by Publication is a Difficult Defence to Establish

On August 19, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Locke JA; Woods and Laskin JJ.A., concurring) held that a patent claiming a specific herbicide (flucarbazone sodium) for the selective control of wild oats was not anticipated by two prior patents disclosing genera of herbicides for a variety of uses. Agracity Crop v. Upl Na

FCA holds that Anticipation by Publication is a Difficult Defence to Establish Read More »

Parliamentary Committee Issues Report on PMPRB Reform. Calls for “Comprehensive Response” by the Government

Parliamentary Committee Issues Report on PMPRB Reform. Calls for “Comprehensive Response” by the Government On May 6, 2024, Canada’s Standing Committee on Health (“HESA”) issued a report containing “ten recommendations on how the Government of Canada can enable the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (“PMPRB”) to more effectively carry out its mandate and implement its

Parliamentary Committee Issues Report on PMPRB Reform. Calls for “Comprehensive Response” by the Government Read More »

The “Due Care” Standard for Patent Reinstatement in Canada: A Very High Bar

The Federal Court (per Furlanetto J.) has held that the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) acted reasonably in denying a request for reinstatement of a patent that lapsed due to non-payment of an annual maintenance fee. This decision underscores the importance of having multiple lines of communication between a patent agent and a client – and

The “Due Care” Standard for Patent Reinstatement in Canada: A Very High Bar Read More »

Federal Court Upholds Use of “Clinical Similarities” to Assess PMPRB Reporting Jurisdiction

In Galderma’s long-running dispute with the PMPRB, the Federal Court (per Fothergill J.) recently upheld the PMPRB’s decision that Galderma’s patent claiming the use of a 0.3% adapalene formulation “pertained” to its DIFFERIN (0.1% adapalene) product. Galderma Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) – Federal Court (fct-cf.gc.ca) This is the most recent chapter in a

Federal Court Upholds Use of “Clinical Similarities” to Assess PMPRB Reporting Jurisdiction Read More »

FCA Reaffirms Strict Rules for Patent Lists Under the PMNOC Regulations

Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing) holds that PMNOC Regulations do not allow a first person to amend an existing patent list to create a new patent linkage. Janssen Inc. v. Canada (Health) – Federal Court of Appeal (fca-caf.ca) Janssen Inc. v. Canada (Health) – Federal Court (fct-cf.gc.ca) This decision concerns the arcane timing

FCA Reaffirms Strict Rules for Patent Lists Under the PMNOC Regulations Read More »