Is operating a website that provides links to torrent websites which facilitates unauthorized downloading of musical works a criminal offence? If so, can the operator of such sites expect jail time as punishment for this crime? In a recent decision of the English and Wales Court of Appeal in Evans, R. v  EWCA Crim 139 (14 February 201), the accused, Mr Evans, was convicted of two offences of distributing infringing copies of musical works and was sentenced to 12 months in prison for these crimes.… Continue Reading
Five years ago, Canada enacted legal protection for technological protection measures (TPMs) as part of the Copyright Modernization Act. The Federal Court has now rendered the first decision interpreting these important rights. In short, the court made it clear that legal protection for TPMs were meant to foster innovation in the creative industries and that businesses blatantly engaging in industrial scale TPM circumvention activities will be dealt with harshly by the courts.
In a recent decision (Apotex Inc. v. ADIR, 2017 FCA 23), the Federal Court of Appeal determined that the Federal Court erred in law by rejecting the relevance at law of any available non-infringing product and failed to adequately consider the evidence adduced as to the ability and willingness of three suppliers to provide non-infringing product. According to the Court of Appeal:
- To the extent the Federal Court rejected the relevance of non-infringing perindopril because the defendant sold perindopril, this conclusion was inconsistent with Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34 where the Roundup Ready
On February 8, 2017, the Quebec Court of Appeal certified a class action by Copibec against Université Laval, for copyright infringement.
This decision overturns a Superior Court ruling from 2016, which would have dismissed the claim on the basis that Copibec did not satisfy the eligibility requirements under the province’s Code of Civil Procedure for an association to bring a class action on behalf of its members.
Copibec is a collective management organization representing book publishers, visual artists, and newspaper and periodical authors and publishers in Quebec.
On January 4, 2017, the Honourable Justice Locke of the Federal Court of Canada released his decision in Mediatube Corp. et al. v. Bell Canada, 2017 FC 6. This was a patent infringement action in respect of Canadian Patent No. 2,339,477 (the “‘477 Patent”) by the plaintiffs, NorthVu Inc. (patent owner) and MediaTube Corp. (licensee) against Bell Canada (including former Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, together “Bell”). The plaintiffs alleged that Bell infringed the ‘477 Patent through the delivery of its digital Internet Protocol Television (“IPTV”) services called Fibe TV and FibreOp … Continue Reading
Canada’s latest trade deal is set to expand the protection of geographical indications to a wide array of agricultural products.
On October 30, 2016, Canada and the European Union signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (“CETA”). A day later, the Government of Canada tabled Bill C-30 (the “Bill”) for the purpose of implementing CETA into the country’s legislative landscape. One of the primary operative effects of CETA, as a trade agreement, is that it will eliminate 95% of all existing tariffs applied to goods traded between the two jurisdictions. Apart from the direct economic impact … Continue Reading
Changes are coming swiftly, as the federal government moves to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (“CETA”) just days after it was signed by Prime Minister Trudeau in Brussels at the end of October 2016.
These changes will significantly impact biologic/pharma patents in two major ways. First, they will implement, for the first time, a Canadianized version of patent-term restoration. Second, they will revamp the current framework for linkage between patents and the approval of biosimilar/generic drugs in Canada by giving innovators the right of appeal, by changing the nature of the PM(NOC) proceedings to a more U.S.-style approach, … Continue Reading
One of the central features of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DMCA)for online service providers is the combination of the Notice and Takedown regime and the corresponding Safe Harbour provision. Provided that online service providers properly carry out their obligations under these provisions, including by promptly removing infringing content when they receive compliant notices, they are shielded from liability for copyright violations by their users.
This system has critics among service providers, right holders, and users. But it has underpinned the explosion of user content-based services ranging from Facebook and YouTube to small community bulletin boards.
A critical … Continue Reading
In Teva Canada v. Novartis Canada 2016 FCA 230, the Federal Court of Appeal confirms that in assessing the utility of a patented invention, different patent claims can have different promised utilities.
This decision was made in Teva’s appeal from the Federal Court’s judgment (2015 FC 770) in which the Minister of Health was prohibited from granting an NOC to Teva in respect of its generic version of Novartis’ EXJADE® (deferasirox).
The only issue on appeal was whether the lower court erred in law in its construction of the so-called “promise of the patent”.… Continue Reading
In a recent decision, the Federal Court dismissed a motion by Apotex seeking particulars from (or to strike paragraphs from) Allergan’s pleading relating to the prior art, inventive concept, promised utility and sound prediction of utility of the patents at issue.
In this case, Allergan Inc. (“Allergan”) brought an infringement action against Apotex and AA Pharma in respect of two patents relating to Allergan’s drug ALPHAGAN P. Apotex filed a statement of defence and counterclaim, seeking to impeach Allergan’s patents. In its defence to counterclaim, Allergan denied Apotex’s invalidity allegations.… Continue Reading
In this decision (2016 ONSC 4966), the Ontario Court dismissed Apotex’s claim for damages under s. 8 of the NOC Regulations in the face of a motion to strike. Apotex’s other relatively esoteric claims were, however, left for another day. These claims include alleged false and misleading statements under s. 7 of the Canadian Trade-Marks Act, unjust enrichment, nuisance, and conspiracy. Pfizer failed to establish that these claims were doomed to fail. The high standard applicable on these motions was not met.
Apotex pursues Pfizer in the Ontario Court for alleged losses relating to Apotex’s delay in … Continue Reading
Gilead’s Canadian Patent 2,261,619 (the “619 Patent”)—the compound patent for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (“TDF”)—is no stranger to Canadian courts. Adding to its litigious history, the Federal Court recently dismissed each of Apotex’s claims in an application under Canada’s NOC Regulations to find—for a second time—allegations relating to the 619 Patent’s validity unjustified.… Continue Reading
Photographer Edmond Chung’s fashion photos of Brandy Melville Canada Ltd. (“Brandy Melville”) employee Catherine Moisan were destined to be viewed on Instagram and Facebook. However, Brandy Melville’s unauthorized use of one of his photographs led Edmond Chung on a years-long effort to seek redress from the retailer for breach of his copyright. Edmond Chung finally succeeded in his efforts this April 2016 when the Court of Quebec’s Small Claims Division condemned Brandy Melville to pay Edmond Chung $5,000.00 for copyright infringement.  This decision is good news for creators seeking to share their work with a larger audience as it … Continue Reading
In May 2016, the Allied Security Trust, a non-profit industry group, announced the launch of the Industry Patent Purchase Program, otherwise known as IP3. This new initiative brings together technology industry leaders including Facebook, IBM, Microsoft, and Adobe, to establish a patent marketplace in an effort to create an opportunity for patent owners to both protect their intellectual property, and acquire valuable patents.
The IP3 follows the footsteps of previous initiatives by tech industry leaders, including an initiative spearheaded by Google last year, the Patent Purchase Promotion Program, that invited companies and start-ups to sell their patents to Google.… Continue Reading
On June 1, 2016, the Federal Court granted an interlocutory injunction against retailers of television set-top boxes with pre-loaded applications that permit the unauthorized streaming and downloading of copyrighted content. Recognizing the “emerging phenomenon” of “pre-loaded set-top boxes” in Canada, this injunction comes at a time of rapid growth in the popularity of such devices. Finding for the plaintiff broadcasting companies, the Court’s Order in Bell Canada et al. v 1326030 Ontario Inc. et al., 2016 FC 612 also permitted the plaintiffs to identify and add other retailers of pre-loaded set-top boxes as additional defendants to bring them under … Continue Reading
On May 10, 2016, the Federal Court of Canada rendered its decision in Maltz v. Witterick, denying the Applicants, Judy Maltz, Barbara Bird and Richie Sherman, producers of a documentary called No. 4 Street of our Lady (the “Documentary”), an award in damages for breach of copyright and infringement of moral rights allegedly caused by Jennifer L. Witterick, author of the book My Mother’s Secret (the “Book”).
In re-examining the question of whether a particular set of facts can be subject to copyright protection, this case sheds light on the “substantial taking” test as … Continue Reading
On June 14, I gave my annual presentation to the Toronto computer Lawyers’ Group on “The year in review in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law”. It covered the period from June 2015 to June 2016. The developments included cases from Canada, the U.S. the U.K., and other Commonwealth countries.
The developments were organized into the broad topics of: Technology Contracting, Online Agreements, Privacy, Online/Intermediary Liability/Responsibility, Copyright, and Trade-marks and Domain names.
The cases referred to are listed below. My slides can be viewed after the case listing. These and many other cases will be added to my 7 volume book … Continue Reading
Last year we wrote about a trilogy of Federal Court decisions relating to Eli Lilly’s erectile dysfunction (ED) drug CIALIS® (tadalafil). While Lilly was successful in obtaining a prohibition order in the first proceeding, its latter two applications were dismissed. Mylan appealed the first order, and the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) recently released its decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2016 FCA 119 dismissing Mylan’s appeal.
The FCA’s decision affirms the view that obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting validity challenges require distinct analyses, and that a patent’s disclosure cannot be referenced to vary the … Continue Reading
A recent decision of the Federal Court in Allergan Inc. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (2016 FC 344), relating to the drug Gatifloxacin, appears to have regressed the issue of expert “blinding” in patent cases. Expert “blinding” is a relatively recent trend in patent litigation where a litigant intentionally “blinds” its expert witness to certain issues and materials in an effort to afford their opinions a higher degree of credibility. In the Gatifloxacin decision, the Court appears to have endorsed expert “blinding” in patent cases as not only de rigueur but, perhaps necessary; while other recent decisions of … Continue Reading
The purchase of a competitor’s trade-mark as an online advertising keyword is not an infringement, according to a recent Federal Court of Australia decision. In making its finding, the Court in Veda Advantage Limited v Malouf Group Enterprises Pty Limited,  FCA 255 relied on evidence that the keywords were not visible to consumers and were selected and provided to Google by the defendant, rather than being used to identify a trade source. However, use of the trademark in a “sponsored link” in relation to the same services as those of the registered mark was held to be an infringement … Continue Reading
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
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
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
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