Canada: Re-Examination Process Stayed Pending Resolution Of Patent Infringement Action (Intellectual Property Weekly Abstracts - Week of June 26, 2017)


Re-examination process stayed pending resolution of patent infringement action

Camso Inc. v. Soucy International Inc., 2016 FC 1116

In this motion, Camso requested a stay of a request made by a law firm, Brouillette + Partners, to the Commissioner of Patents to re-examine one of Camso's patents, Canadian Patent 2,822,562 (the '562 Patent). The request claimed lack of novelty and obviousness of the '562 Patent.

Another patent, Canadian Patent  2,388,294 (the '294 Patent), owned by Camso and relating to the same technology, namely, tracks used on all-terrain vehicles, had been the subject of a request for re-examination previously. The Court noted that Camso did not respond to this request and a number of claims were cancelled following the re-examination of the '294 Patent. The day after the decision of the re-examination board in November 2014, Camso commenced a patent infringement action against the defendants, Soucy. During the course of the action, the Statement of Claim was amended to allege infringement of the '562 Patent.

After the claim was amended, Brouillette + Partners filed a request for re-examination of the '562 Patent. Camso responded to this re-examination. Thus, as noted by the Court, the infringement action and the re-examination process were ongoing at the same time.  Further, counsel for Soucy, the defendant in the action, appeared on the motion to stay the request for re-examination.

The parties debated whether the applicable test for determining the motion was that as set out in RJR-Macdonald Inc v Canada (AG), [1994] 1 SCR 311 or that set out in White v EBF Manufacturing Ltd., 2001 FCT 713. After reviewing the case law, the Court held "there could be no controversy with regard to the test to be applied in our case: those cited converge."

In conducting its analysis on the merits, the Court noted the similarities between the allegations raised in the re-examination process and the infringement action, namely, lack of novelty and obviousness. The Court held that it was in the interest of justice to allow the proceeding in the Federal Court to proceed on the basis that it would allow more substantial evidence to be considered as compared to the re-examination process. The Court also considered arguments relating to the harm to Brouillette + Partners if the re-examination was stayed, and to Camso if it were not stayed. The Court concluded that the interest of justice favours ordering the stay of the re-examination process.

Costs in the amount of $3000 were to be paid immediately to Camso.

Court grants new counsels' eyes only order where previous order interfered significantly with the solicitor-client relationship

Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 2017 FC 585

The Court granted an appeal of the Prothonotary's Order, allowing Bard's motion to amend provisions in an existing protective order to the designation of "Counsels' Eyes Only" ("Amended CEO Order").

In the underlying proceeding, Bard alleged that Gore has infringed the '519 Patent, entitled Prosthetic Vascular Graft; Gore counterclaimed that the '519 Patent is invalid. The inventor of the '519 Patent, Dr. Goldfarb, has previously testified before the Federal Court in a related Canadian litigation matter pertaining to the '519 Patent, and before courts in the United States in related litigation matters.

Gore brought a motion before the District Court to examine Dr. Goldfarb on the basis of Letters Rogatory issued from this Court in this action. The District Court issued a subpoena, which was successfully quashed on appeal on the basis that Dr. Goldfarb was medically unfit to be examined. The Medical Records and the Subpoena Order were designated as CEO by the District Court.

The Amended CEO Order at issue prevented Gore's trial counsel from showing the U.S. order quashing a subpoena, and Dr. David Goldfarb's medical information, to Gore's in-house counsel and outside experts. The Court agreed that the Prothonotary erred in fact and law in holding that the Amended CEO Order would not prejudice Gore. Gore stated that it plans to use the Medical Records to challenge the admissibility of the hearsay evidence of Dr. Goldfarb, after outside counsel is able to receive necessary and proper instructions from their in-house counsel. This is precluded by the amended Order.  The Court concluded that the Amended CEO Order was inappropriate because of its significant interference with the solicitor-client relationship and granted a new CEO Order, which allows Gore's in-house counsel access to the Subpoena Order and the Medical Records.


Trademark infringement and passing off found in respect of 9 marks — permanent injunction granted

Diageo Canada Inc. v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc., 2017 FC 571

In this case, Diageo brought suit against Heaven Hill, alleging passing off and infringement of Diageo's trademarks associated with its CAPTAIN MORGAN rum products by Heaven Hill's ADMIRAL NELSON'S rum products.

Heaven Hill argued that Diageo's case was an abuse of process. However, the Court held that the evidence relied upon by Heaven Hill shows no collateral, extraneous, ulterior, improper or illicit purpose.  Furthermore, there was no other evidence before the Court to show that the action is anything other than one to enforce trademark rights.

Heaven Hill also argued latches and acquiescence as there was evidence of Diageo's knowledge of ADMIRAL NELSON'S products in Canada as early as 2009, and it ought to have known of the products as early as 2003, yet it waited over a decade to take action.  Heaven Hill argued that Diageo permitted the ADMIRAL NELSON brand to establish itself in the market, and as such, if successful, an injunction should not be the remedy.  Diageo argued that it was not aware of the brand until 2013, and took immediate action.  After weighing the evidence, the Court held that Diageo was not aware of the ADMIRAL NELSON'S brand prior to 2013, and was not estopped in the action by reason of acquiescence, latches or delay.  As a result of the date finding, the Court also held that Diageo's claims were not statute-barred.

The Court held that the allegation that some of Diageo's registrations were abandoned should also fail.  Heaven Hill raised the point at trial, that despite admissions in its pleadings and in the agreed statement of facts, it did not sell ADMIRAL NELSON'S rum in Canada.  The Court considered the evidence, and held that not to be the case.

In considering the allegations of passing off, the Court held that Diageo had established goodwill.  The Court found no evidence of intentional misrepresentation on the part of Heaven Hill.  However, the Court did find misrepresentation due to confusion, on the basis of survey evidence submitted by Diageo.  Thus, the Court held that Diageo established, on a balance of probabilities, that Heaven Hill contravened subsection 7(b) of the Act.  However, there was no evidence that the ADMIRAL NELSON products were substituted for CAPTAIN MORGAN products.  Thus the allegations under subsection 7(c) were dismissed.  The Court also held that the requisite damages for a passing off claim were present.

The Court then considered the trademark infringement allegations.  After considering each of the elements of the test for trademark infringement, the Court held that Heaven Hill's use of its character or label trademarks in association with ADMIRAL NELSON'S rum products infringes Diageo's exclusive rights in 9 registered trademarks.  Furthermore, this use was held to likely have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attached to Diageo's trademarks.  Diageo was granted, inter alia, declarations of infringement of 9 trademarks, a permanent injunction, and delivery up of all ADMIRAL NELSON'S bottles in Canada.  Diageo was further granted damages and its costs.

Heaven Hill's counterclaim, including for an injunction restraining Diageo from making false and misleading statements about its products and business, was dismissed.

Adequate alternative remedies do not include different proceedings pursuant to different statutory provisions

McDowell v. Automatic Princess Holdings, LLC, 2017 FCA 126

The Federal Court of Appeal has clarified the law relating to what constitutes an adequate alternate remedy in the context of interlocutory decisions in trademark opposition proceedings.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court (2015 FC 980), that dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Trade-marks Opposition Board (TMOB) to refuse to allow McDowell to amend her statement of opposition to the respondent's trademark application.  The Federal Court had found that McDowell had an adequate remedy available, such as an expungement proceeding.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the jurisprudence and discussed how a prior decision of the Federal Court, Indigo Books & Music Inc. v. C. & J. Clark International Ltd., 2010 FC 859, held that an adequate alternate remedy could be one that exists outside of the framework of the opposition proceedings.  This decision was expressly overturned, finding that: 

[R]ecourse to the courts before the remedies provided in the administrative process have been exhausted is not justified. There is no ambiguity on this point. The fact that a different proceeding, pursuant to a different statutory provision, might produce the same result does not engage the doctrine of adequate alternate remedy. The objective is to avoid fragmenting administrative processes that already provide for a form of review. It is not to force litigants into different proceedings to obtain redress.

On this basis, the Court reviewed the TMOB's decision to refuse to allow McDowell to amend her statement of opposition.  That decision was not found to be reasonable.  While the amendment was sought late in the proceeding, the Court held that this is only a factor to be considered and where any prejudice caused by the delay can be remedied by allowing the other party additional time, it ought not to be a determinative factor.

The matter was returned to the TMOB with a direction that McDowell's application to amend her statement of opposition is to be allowed on such terms as are necessary to do justice between the parties.

No error was made in finding the trade name TIME DEVELOPMENT GROUP confusing with the registered mark TIMES GROUP CORPORATION

Time Development Group Inc. v. Times Group Corporation, 2017 FCA 125

The appellant Time Development Group Inc. was unsuccessful in its bid to overturn a prior decision finding its tradename, TIME DEVELOPMENT GROUP had infringed a registered trademark TIMES GROUP CORPORATION (2016 FC 1075, our summary here).  The appellants had been enjoined from using its tradenames or any confusingly similar variants.

The Court of Appeal first considered whether the registered mark had been used by anyone other than the owner, such that it was not distinctive.  The Federal Court had made a factual finding that the mark was not used by anyone other than the registered owner, and this finding was not overturned on appeal.  A second argument regarding the coexistence and use of similar tradenames and trademarks was also unsuccessful in showing a lack of distinctiveness.

As to confusion, the Court of Appeal was also not swayed that a palpable and overriding error was made.  The Federal Court found that there is a very strong resemblance between the registered trademark TIMES GROUP CORPORATION and the tradename TIME DEVELOPMENT GROUP.  This included the fact that the mark and name are used in similar businesses and in the same vicinity.  Namely, all of the parties are involved in real estate development and management, and their businesses are focused on the Chinese Canadian community in the Greater Toronto Area.

The Federal Court further noted a striking resemblance when the names are written in Chinese, because the singular and plural of TIME are the same.

After holding that there were no errors made with respect to the confusion analysis, the appeal was dismissed with costs.


AstraZeneca Canada Inc., AstraZeneca Aktiebolag, AstraZeneca UK Limited v. Apotex Inc., Apotex Pharmachem Inc. (Federal Court of Appeal) (Civil) (By leave) (Court Docket #36654)

The Supreme Court announced that judgment in the AstraZeneca's appeal will be delivered on Friday, June 30, 2017.

About BLG

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions