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 considered patent validity, claim construction, infringement, and remedies in a dispute between Adeia Guides Inc. and Videotron Ltd. over interactive television technologies.
Federal Court found the 083 Patent valid and infringed for nintedanib IPF use, but held the 267 Patent not infringed because lecithin was essential and absent from JAMP’s product.
The Federal Court held the 868 and 917 patent claims invalid for obviousness, but upheld the 458 patent claims, found JAMP infringing those valid claims, and denied an injunction.
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
Federal Court held Sandoz would induce infringement of some Roche pirfenidone claims, but not directly infringe. The asserted claims were invalid for obviousness and as methods of medical treatment.
Federal Court rules Merck’s action partially succeeds: the 363 patent claims are valid but limited to the 13 listed serotypes, while the formulation patents are largely invalid.
The Federal Court partly allowed a motion to file expert reply reports, admitting most replies but excluding some argumentative passages in Dr. Fishwick’s report.
Federal Court upheld BMS’s asserted apixaban patents, rejecting invalidity attacks based on sufficiency, utility, anticipation, obviousness, double patenting, overbreadth, and ambiguity.
The Federal Court granted Merck leave to file reply expert reports and a rebuttal opinion in a patent impeachment action over pneumococcal vaccine patents.
The Federal Court of Appeal found reviewable errors in the Federal Court's treatment of prior art and obviousness: the trial judge erred by excluding publicly available prior art (Higgins and FDA Workshop) from the state of the art on the basis that a person skilled in the art would not have located them, and by conflating disclosure and enablement when dismissing the 1994 Kennedy Report and Higgins as anticipatory; the Saccharin doctrine does not extend to finds of infringement where the alleged infringer's activities occurred entirely outside Canada; there was insufficient evidence to suppo…
Source excerpt
Explore more
