snIP/ITs Insights on Canadian Technology and Intellectual Property Law

Monthly Archives: April 2016

Largest Patent Infringement Award in Canada Stands: Apotex Denied Leave to Appeal to the SCC

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patents

On April 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Apotex’s final attempt at obtaining leave to appeal in the storied patent battle between Merck and Apotex over Merck’s lovastatin patent.

The case began in 1997 when Apotex launched its generic lovastatin product. At the liability trial in 2010, Justice Judith Snider of the Federal Court found Merck’s lovastatin patent to be valid and infringed (2010 FC 1265). The judgment included reference to DNA evidence establishing that Apotex had infringed through its operations in Winnipeg. The Judge also found that Apotex’s joint venture partner fabricated batch records and … Continue Reading

Missing the Mark – the Federal Court of Appeal set aside dismissal in passing off and copyright case

Posted in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Litigation

In Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v. Navsun Holdings Ltd. (2016 FCA 69), the Court of Appeal set aside the Federal Court’s (2014 FC 1139) decision dismissing Hamdard Trust’s claim of copyright infringement and passing off against Navsun Holdings and remitted the matter to the Federal Court for redetermination, with some guidance.

This case involves a dispute over an unregistered trademark used by a Punjabi subscription daily newspaper, Ajit Daily, published in India, and by a free weekly newspaper, Ajit Weekly, published in Canada.  Hamdard Trust, which operates Ajit Daily, sued Navsun Holdings, which operates Ajit Weekly, … Continue Reading

Competition Bureau Finalizes IP Enforcement Guidelines on ‘Pay-for-Delay’ Settlements, Pharmaceutical Product Switching, and ‘Patent Trolls’

Posted in Consumer Protection, Intellectual Property, Patents, Regulatory Compliance

On March 31, 2016, the Competition Bureau (Bureau) released revised Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines (IPEGs). These IPEGs reflect incremental changes to the draft version released for consultation last year. Most notably the new IPEGs provide further guidance on (i) pharmaceutical patent litigation settlements, (ii) product switching (also known as “product hopping”), (iii) collaborative standard setting and standard essential patents, and (iv) patent assertion entities.… Continue Reading

Practical Tips for Obtaining a Norwich Order

Posted in Litigation

Have you been wronged, but are unsure by whom? There’s an app for that! An application, that is…for a Norwich Order.

In the age of the internet, it is increasingly easy to commit wrongs anonymously. Violations of legal rights via the internet can take many forms. From defamation to copyright infringement to breach of confidence and contract, when a wrong has been committed against you or your company but the wrongdoer’s identity is unclear, the first step is to obtain that information. If an innocent third party such as a website has enabled the perpetrator to commit the wrong, a … Continue Reading

“Do Not Call” means Do Not Call: CRTC Enters into MOU with FTC on Spam and Unsolicited Telecommunications

Posted in Anti-Spam, Regulatory Compliance, Telecommunications

On March 24, 2016, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) signed a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) with the United States Federal Trade Commission.[1]  This MOU is an effort by Canada and the United States to work together on anti-spam enforcement measures, and expressly refers to unsolicited telecommunications, unsolicited commercial electronic messages (spam), and other unlawful electronic threats (e.g., malware and botnets).… Continue Reading

Court Gives Green Light For Canadian Pharmaceutical Patent Actions Where Future Infringement Is Likely Though Not Inevitable

Posted in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Patents

In reasons dated March 21, 2016, the Federal Court of Canada upheld a decision that allowed a patent infringement action involving tenofovir (an anti-HIV drug) to continue on the basis of allegations of a likely future (quia timet) infringement. The Court was satisfied that there was a “strong possibility of infringement” in circumstances where regulatory approval, and future market presence, of the generic copycat was “sufficiently likely” even though not inevitable that the generic would receive marketing authorization.… Continue Reading