The following cases are active before the Supreme Court of Canada as appeals from the Federal Court of Appeal. This list is automatically generated daily. Please contact me if you notice any errors or inconsistencies.
Return to litigation data.
[Listing generated on May 18, 2012]
Proceedings waiting for rulings
The following appeals from the Federal Court of Appeal relating to intellectual property are awaiting judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada.
| SCC File No. | Status | Style of Cause | FCA File No. | Excerpt from FCA Decision |
| 33800 | Heard 2011-12-08 | Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Bell Canada, et al. | A-514-07 | 2010 FCA 123: This application for judicial review challenges an aspect of the decision rendered by the Copyright Board (the Board) on October 18, 2007. In this decision, the Board applied the exception in section 29 of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 (the Act) to the application to certify a tariff submitted by the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) in respect of the offer made to consumers to listen by way of a preview to excerpts of musical works. |
| 33888 | Heard 2011-12-07 | Province of Alberta as represented by the MInister of Education, et al. v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency Operating as "Access Copyright" | A-302-09 | 2010 FCA 198: Under the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 (the Act), people can make non-infringing use of copyrighted material provided the use is made for an allowed enumerated purpose and is fair. This practice is known as fair dealing. |
| 33921 | Heard 2011-12-08 | Entertainment Software Association, et al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada | A-521-07 | 2010 FCA 221: This is the last in the series of applications for judicial review generated by the Copyright Board’s (the Board) decision with respect to music on the Internet. This application is brought by the publishers of entertainment software who take issue with a number of the Board’s conclusions. The Board’s decision as to the liability of internet game sites to a tariff is found in its decision dated October 18, 2007 (the Tariff 22.A Decision) while the specifics of the tariff itself are found in the Board’s decision dated October 24, 2008 (the Tariff 22 B to G Decision), specifically, that portion of the decision dealing with Tariff G – Game Sites. On this application, only the Tariff 22.A Decision is in issue. |
| 33922 | Heard 2011-12-08 | Rogers Communications Inc., et al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada | A-519-07 | 2010 FCA 220: These three applications are among a number of applications for judicial review arising out of the Copyright Board’s (the Board) decisions relating to the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada’s (SOCAN) application for a tariff with respect to, broadly speaking, the performance and communication of musical works on, or by means of, the Internet. The issue in this application is, simply put, whether the transmission of a musical work to an individual by an on-line music service is a communication of that work to the public by telecommunications within the meaning of paragraph 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 (the Act). The Board found that they were, a reasonable conclusion, in my view, and as a result, I would dismiss each application for judicial review. |
| 33951 | Heard 2012-04-19 | Teva Canada Limited v. Pfizer Canada Inc., et al. (Sildenafil*) | A-292-09 | 2010 FCA 242: This is an appeal by Novopharm Limited (the “appellant”) from an Order of Kelen J. of the Federal Court (“the Judge”), 2009 FC 638, dated June 18, 2009 (the “Decision”), which, pursuant to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, prohibited the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance (a “NOC”) to the appellant for a generic version of sildenafil tablets (marketed commercially by the respondents as Viagra) until the expiry of the respondents’ Canadian Patent No. 2, 163,446 (the “ ‘446 patent”). For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Judge made no reviewable error in concluding as he did. |
| 34210 | Heard 2011-12-07 | Re:Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada, et al. | A-433-09 | 2011 FCA 70: This is an application for judicial review of a decision of September 16, 2009, by the Copyright Board wherein it answered the following question in the negative: The question arose after the applicant, Re:Sound, filed two proposed tariffs for the performance in public and communication to the public by telecommunication of published sound recordings. Both tariffs were objected to: (1) tariff 7, which targets the use of sound recordings embodied in a motion picture performed by a motion picture theatre; and (2) tariff 9, which targets the use of sound recordings in programs broadcast by television services. |
| 34231 | Heard 2012-04-18 | Cogeco Cable Inc., et al. v. Bell Canada, et al. | A-113-10 | 2011 FCA 64: In Broadcasting Order CRTC 2010-168, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission referred the following question to this Court pursuant to subsections 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the Federal Courts Act: Is the Commission empowered, pursuant to its mandate under the Broadcasting Act, to establish a regime to enable private local television stations to choose to negotiate with broadcasting distribution undertakings a fair value in exchange for the distribution of the programming services broadcast by those local television stations? |
Application for leave from the FCA
Applications for leave to appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal have been filed on the following intellectual property related proceedings.
| SCC File No. | Status | Style of Cause | FCA File No. | Excerpt from FCA Decision |
| 34466 | Application for leave filed 2011-09-21 | Cinar Corporation, et al. v. Claude Robinson, et al. | 2011 QCCA 1361: The case relates to two main issues. First was there a violation copyright and moral rights in the work Robinson Curiosity in contravention of the Copyright Act. Secondly, is there liability for alleged unlawful behavior in violation of the obligations of the Civil Code of Quebec. Finally, what are the appropriate remedies for claimed damages for psychological injury, injury to their moral rights, the violation of their copyright and lost profits. | |
| 34481 | Application for leave filed 2011-10-04 | Lojas Renner S.A. v. Tucows.Com Co. | 2011 ONCA 548: Tucows.com and Lojas Renner S. are having a dispute about Tucow’s right to keep the domain name <renner.com> in the face of Renners registered trademark “Renner”. | |
| 34600 | Application for leave filed 2012-01-04 | Schering Corporation, et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al. (Ramipril*) | A-389-09 | 2011 FCA 300: These reasons relate to Court File Numbers A-390-09, A-386-09, A-389-09 and A-387-09. The original of the reasons will be filed in A-390-09, the lead file, and copies will be placed in the other three files. |
| 34676 | Application for leave filed 2012-02-17 | Apotex Inc., et al. v. Merck & Co. Inc., et al. (Lovastatin*) | A-9-11 | 2011 FCA 363: These appeals are from the judgment of Justice Snider of the Federal Court who found Apotex and AFI had infringed Merck’s Canadian Patent Number 1,161,380. This patent, which expired in 2001, covered a method of making lovastatin using a microorganism of the genus Aspergillus terreus. More specifically, the judge found that the appellants were liable for damages with respect to the Apo-lovastatin products made from the first commercial batch produced in Canada by AFI and from the 294 batches of lovastatin produced by Blue Treasure in China after March 1998. |
| 34681 | Application for leave filed 2012-02-17 | Merck & Co. Inc., et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al. (Lovastatin*) | A-10-11 | 2011 FCA 364: The present appeal raises three issues. First is Apotex’ claim for compensation governed by the version of section 8 of the PMNOC Regulations enacated in 1993 or that enacted in 1998? This, in turn, depends on whether Merck’s application for prohibition was ‘pending’ on March 11, 1998, the date the 1998 Regulations came into effect. Second, has Apotex established an entitlement to compensation under subsection 8(1) of the applicable version of section 8? Third, if it has, should this Court determine the basis on which compensation is to be calculated and what defences to Apotex’ claim are available to Merck, or should it remit these issues to the Judge? |
| 34731 | Application for leave filed 2012-03-16 | Nagib Tajdin, et al. v. His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan | A-59-11 | 2012 FCA 12: The appellants Nagib Tajdin and Alnaz Jiwa ask this Court to reverse the judgment of the Federal Court (2011 FCA 14) granting the summary judgment motion of the respondent, His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan (the Aga Khan). The judgment declares that Mr. Tajdin and Mr. Jiwa infringed the Aga Khan’s copyright in his literary works, particularly Farmans and Talikas, and grants among other things a permanent injunction precluding the publication of a book entitled Farmans 1957-2009 – Golden Edition Kalam-E Iman-E-Zaman (Golden Edition) as well as accompanying MP3 audio bookmarks (preloaded with fourteen audio extracts of readings of Farmans by the Aga Khan). |
Return to top.
Disclaimers:
- It is highly recommended that you consult the primary source for documents provided by this website, such as the Federal Court of Canada or the various patent offices, to ensure that you have an accurate, up to date version of the information you require. I take no responsibilities for errors or out-dated information found on this website.
- Medicinal ingredients are based on automated analysis and should not be relied upon.