The Court of Appeal remitted a case to the Court, requiring the
Court to redetermine whether Corlac had infringed a method claim by
inducement. A copy of the Federal Court decision can be found here. A copy of our summary can be found
here. On redetermination, the Court found that the Court of
Appeal did not disturb its finding relating to the second part of
the test for inducement, namely that Corlac's instruction
manual instructed the practice of the claimed method and therefore
this finding was res judicata. This is an appeal from the
The Court of Appeal held that the Court was correct to review
the reasons of the Court of Appeal to determine the scope of the
matter remitted to the Court. The Court of Appeal then noted that
the Court's conclusion that res judicata applied is reviewable
on the standard of correctness and the Court's determination of
the scope of the question remitted by the Court of Appeal is also a
question of law and subject to review on the correctness
The Court of Appeal found that the Court erred in finding that
this question relating to the second part of the test for
inducement was res judicata. The Court of Appeal held that this
question was to be determined by the Court because the Court of
Appeal remitted the entire question of inducement back to the
Court. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found that the Court erred
when defining the scope of the matter remitted to the Court and the
redetermination decision was set aside by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal ordered that the following question be
re-determined by the Court: "does the appellants'
instruction manual, properly understood, instruct the practice of
the method of claim 17? Once this issue is determined, on the basis
of the Judge's findings at the prior redetermination hearing
(which have not been challenged on this appeal), the Judge will
decide whether the appellants have infringed claim 17."
The Federal Court dismissed a motion by Apotex seeking particulars from Allergan's pleading relating to the prior art, inventive concept, promised utility and sound prediction of utility of the patents at issue.
Last year we saw the Canadian Courts release trademark decisions that granted a rare interlocutory injunction, issued jailed sentences for failure to comply with injunctive relief, grappled with trademark and internet issues...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).