Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court held the asserted methotrexate patent claims invalid for obviousness, finding the inventive concept was concentration in a known subcutaneous context.
The Federal Court dismissed Takeda’s patent action against Apotex, finding no infringement of the dexlansoprazole claims and invalidity for inadequate disclosure and unsound prediction of utility.
The appeal is dismissed: the motion judge permissibly found exceptional circumstances (non‑transferable, employer‑specific skills and the COVID‑19 pandemic) supporting 27 months' reasonable notice, and the Equity Award's Termination of Employment clause is ambiguous such that it does not clearly extinguish the respondent's common law entitlement to RSUs that would have vested during the notice period.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court: the 202 Patent is a valid selection patent and its claims to apixaban are not anticipated, obvious, double‑patented or insufficient; the 171 Patent claims in issue are not obvious, are not ambiguous on the proper reading available to a skilled formulator, and are not overbroad; the appeals are dismissed.
Source excerpt
The covenant’s wording (prohibiting being 'concerned with' or 'interested in, directly or indirectly, any undertaking involving any business the same as, similar to or competitive with' Hometown IDA) extends beyond barring Norton from working as a pharmacist and therefore is ambiguous and/or overly broad; the employer failed to prove the restriction was reasonable between the parties; appellate deference to the application judge’s interpretive findings was appropriate under Sattva; result: covenant unenforceable and appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the Federal Court: the trial judge did not commit any reviewable error in purposive construction of the disputed claim terms, in crediting the respondent’s expert evidence, in finding specified claims valid and infringed by the appellants (including inducement and pre-issuance liability where applicable), and in exercising discretion to enforce parties' undertakings about calling expert witnesses; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court allowed Taro to amend its defence in a PMNOC action, holding the amendments were not barred by the NOA and caused limited prejudice.
The word "solicit" bears its ordinary meaning as used in the contract; the evidence showed calls were made to obtain business, the restraint was reasonable in duration (two years) and geography and not contrary to public interest; formation findings supported enforceability, and the competitor employer was vicariously liable for the breaches, therefore the non-solicitation clause was enforceable and the appeal fails.
Source excerpt
Because the April 11 Agreement was ambiguous, the trial judge permissibly considered parties' subsequent conduct to infer their intentions; he reasonably found the appellant's post‑contract negotiations with Capital Markets were inconsistent with his claim that the agreement covered Capital Markets transactions, and there was no palpable and overriding error nor extricable legal error—appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that “net sale proceeds” in a consent order meant after deductions and did not include an implied share of real estate commission.
Explore more
