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 […]
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
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 »
On August 8, 2024, the Federal Court (per Furlanetto J.) held that a patent directed to nintedanib for use in the prevention or treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (“IPF”) was valid and infringed, while a patent directed to formulations of nintedanib was not infringed. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. et al v. Jamp Pharma Corporation, 2024
On June 18, 2024, the Federal Court (per McHaffie J.) held that a patent for a computer system used to collect and process agricultural data was invalid for anticipation and obviousness. Agi Suretrack, LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc., 2024 FC 934 Background Canadian Patent No 2,888,742 (the “742 Patent”) entitled “Farming Data Collection and Exchange
Patent for Agricultural Computer System Held Invalid for Anticipation and Obviousness Read More »
Co-authored by Emily Papsin The Federal Court recently held (per McHaffie J.) that the impugned claims of two related patents for an additive manufacturing process (3D printing) were invalid and not infringed because an essential element (“depletion layer”) was ambiguous. Tekna Plasma Systems Inc. v. AP&C Advanced Powders & Coatings Inc., 2024 FC 871 Background
Federal Court Makes Rare Holding that Patent Claims are Invalid for Ambiguity Read More »
The Federal Court (Tsimberis J.) recently held that the Applicant, F.I.A.L. Finanziaria Industrie Alto Lario, S.P.A. (“Applicant” or “Fial”) is entitled to register the trademark, GALPERTI pursuant to ss. 38(2)(c) and 16(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) in an appeal of a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board (“Board”) that had refused Fial’s application
Court Overturns TMOB Decision Based on New Evidence of Earlier and Continuous Use Read More »
In a decision by Pentney J., the Federal Court dismissed an appeal by Patagonia, Inc. (“Patagonia” or the “Applicant”) of a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks (the “Registrar”) to maintain the registration for the trademark, PATAGONIA, when used in association with “Beer”. The result of this decision is that the mark, Patagonia, can be
Labatt’s Brew-haha with Patagonia Read More »
On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the applications for leave to appeal in Apotex Inc. v. Janssen Inc. et al., 2024 FCA 9 and Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc. et al., 2024 FCA 10, both Federal Court of Appeal decisions pertaining to inducing infringement of a patented dosing regimen. We published
On May 31, 2024, the Federal Court (Tsimberis J.) granted an application to correct the inventorship of an issued patent. The decision provides a clear explanation of the relevant legal principles (Patent Act, s. 52) and the type of evidence that must be led to obtain relief. Smith Sport Optics, Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of
Federal Court Grants an Application to Add Inventors and an Owner to an Issued Patent Read More »
