In a decision by Pallotta J., the Federal Court allowed an appeal of the Registrar’s decision to expunge a trademark registration owned by The Little Brown Box Pizza, LLC (“Owner”), but amended it by deleting several services, as the Owner had not shown any use or special circumstances that excused their non-use. The Little Brown […]
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
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
The Federal Court ruled that Chanel did not infringe Molo Design’s patent on a Flexible Wall System, and that claims 1 and 2 are invalid as being anticipated or obvious in light of the prior art. Molo Design, Ltd. v. Chanel Canada ULC et al, 2024 FC 1260 Background In early 2021, Chanel used window
Patent For a Flexible Wall System Not Infringed and Certain Claims Invalid Read More »
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 »
