Articles

The Supreme Court of Canada heard oral arguments on November 8, 2016 in an important appeal challenging the “promise of the patent” utility doctrine in Canada. In AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (Esomeprazole), the Supreme Court was asked to decide on the question of whether the doctrine properly exists in Canada. This article provides a brief summary of the oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court.

John Simpson outlines the options available to companies experiencing an online attack on its brand.

The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Nortel Networks Corporation, Re 2015 ONSC 2987 (“Nortel”), is a useful case study to highlight the complexity associated with the valuation of intellectual property.

An Ontario court recently ruled in 395804 Ontario Limited c.o.b. as Blacklock's Reporter v. Canadian Vintners Association and Dan Paszkowski that circumventing a subscription paywall to access a news article violates the technological protection measure (TPM) provisions in Canada's Copyright Act, and negates the fair dealing defence to copyright infringement available under Canadian law.

In the recent decision of Imperial Manufacturing Group Inc. v. Decor Grates Incorporated, 2015 FCA 100, the Federal Court of Appeal used an appeal of a particulars motion in an industrial designs case to eliminate the prior distinction between the standard of review of discretionary or interlocutory orders and all other appeals from the Federal Court.

This summer, Toronto will host the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games, one of the most technologically connected games on the globe.

In September 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled to allow libraries to digitize and distribute books to reading terminals without a digitization licence.

On January 23, 2015, the Federal Court released its decision on the quantum of damages in the cefaclor (Eli Lilly’s Ceclor) litigation: Eli Lilly and Company et al v Apotex Inc, 2014 FC 1254. This article provides a summary of that decision, which is only the second Federal Court decision which quantifies a damages remedy in a pharmaceutical patent infringement proceeding.