The Court granted a prohibition order preventing Pharmascience
from coming to market until the expiry of the patent. The Court
found the NOA to be sufficient, however, found all of
Pharmascience's allegations as to invalidity unjustified.
The Court held that the patent claimed an invention and not just
known properties of a substance. The Court considered the promise
of the patent and held that Pharmascience had "failed to
demonstrate 'that the invention will not work, either in the
sense that it will not operate at all or, more broadly, that it
will not do what the specification promises that it will
do'". The patent was found to sufficiently describe the
invention and how to put it into operation. Finally, the patent was
found to not be obvious. Thus, the application for prohibition was
In this copyright action, the Court granted summary judgment for
infringement of a number of software programs and pieces of cover
art. The Defendant did not appear at the hearing of the summary
judgment motion, despite being duly served with notice of it. The
Court held there was no genuine issue for trial.
The Court held that there was a need for deterrent relief, due
to the Defendant's conduct, and awarded maximum statutory
damages per work infringed. The Court also found that punitive
damages and costs on a solicitor client basis were warranted.
This is the reference after the decision on the merits from the
Trial and Court of Appeal in the s. 8 case. The Court
considered evidence as to the generic market, Apotex' share of
the generic market, Apotex' capacity to manufacture
alendronate, formulary listings, price, and double ramp up. The
Court also considered deductions such as rebates and free goods.
The Court made a number of rulings in this regard and ordered the
accounting experts to come to an agreement regarding the amount of
compensation. The Court will accept submissions from the parties
once it has received the accountants' submissions and make
judgment at that time.
The Court recently released a translation of this decision
dismissing a motion to strike pleadings. The Defendants brought a
motion seeking to strike out the Statement of Claim on the basis
that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the cause of action
raised. The Plaintiffs had brought a declaratory action under the
Trade-marks Act. The Court held that it is not plain and obvious
that it does not have jurisdiction over such a declaratory
A recent Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench decision allowed a court-appointed receiver to sell and transfer intellectual property rights free and clear of encumbrances, finding that a license to use improvements of an invention was a contractual interest and not a property interest.
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).