Global Injunction

The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision today in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34, with the majority holding in the 7-2 decision that the trial judge should be given deference in determining an interlocutory injunction, and where it is necessary to ensure the injunction’s effectiveness, a court can grant an injunction enjoining conduct anywhere in the world, including in this case against third-party Google. The underlying proceeding related to passing off and trade secret infringement by a defendant which was conducted outside B.C. through a series of changing websites.

Continue reading Global Injunction

CETA Implementation

According to an article about the timing of CETA implementation by the CBC, “the European pharmaceutical industry doesn’t want the EU to set a date to start implementing the deal until Canada publishes and consults on some regulatory changes promised to generic drug manufacturers, and some member states are expressing these concerns to the European Commission.” Implementation of CETA requires among other things, amendments to the patent linkage system and patent term adjustment (see earlier post).

Promise Doctrine

The Supreme Court announced that it will be releasing the decision in AstraZeneca Canada Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al. on Friday, June 30th. It is expected that the decision will consider whether lower courts erred in law in finding the patent invalid: (i) on the basis of a “promise of the patent” utility doctrine; and/or (ii) by applying an incorrect standard for patent utility.

Forum Selection Clauses

The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision today in Douez v. Facebook, Inc., in which the majority, in a split decision, allowed the appeal and held that the forum selection clause should not be enforced. The plaintiff sought certification for a class action against Facebook alleging the company used her name and likeness without consent for the purposes of advertising, contrary to BC’s Privacy Act. A forum selection clause in the terms of use required disputes to be resolved in California under California law.

Also today, the Supreme Court announced it would release its decision next week in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. et al. on extraterritorial injunctions. Continue reading Forum Selection Clauses

Disparaging Marks

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Matal v. Tam where the US Patent and Trademark Office had denied an application for “The Slants” under a Lanham Act provision prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.”  The court held that the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. (link)

Canadian Intellectual Property