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.
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).
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.
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
Judges were appointed to the courts in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta and the Federal Courts. John Laskin of Torys was appointed a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and William Pentney, Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, was appointed a judge of the Federal Court.
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)
Proposed regulatory amendments to the Trade-marks Regulations and the Industrial Design Regulations have been published. Consultations are being considered through to mid-July. These changes include substantive changes to implement Madrid Protocol, Singapore Treaty and Nice Agreement for trademarks and Hague Agreement for industrial designs. Continue reading Consultation