The following intellectual property cases are active before the Supreme Court of Canada. This list is automatically generated daily. Please contact me if you notice any errors or inconsistencies.
Return to litigation data.
[Listing generated on April 16, 2026]
Proceedings waiting for rulings
The following intellectual property appeals are awaiting judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada.
| SCC File No. | Status | Style of Cause | Appeal File No. | Excerpt from Appeal Decision |
| 41209 | Heard 2025-10-09 | Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc., et al. | A-205-22 | 2024 FCA 23: This is an appeal of a decision 2022 FC 1218 in the context of an action brought pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the PM(NOC) Regulations. … The only ground that remains relevant for the purposes of this appeal is that the claims of the 335 Patent are invalid because they comprise unpatentable subject matter, namely methods of medical treatment. The Federal Court rejected this allegation and found the claims of the 335 Patent valid. … To summarize, whether or not a patent claim to a dosing regimen relates to a method of medical treatment cannot be based exclusively on whether its dosing and schedule is fixed or not. The proper inquiry remains whether use of the invention (i.e., how to use it, not whether to use it) requires the exercise of skill and judgment, and the burden remains on the party challenging the patent. … It follows from the foregoing that I would dismiss the present appeal. |
| 41538 | Heard 2026-03-19 | Facebook Inc. v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada | A-129-23 | 2024 FCA 140: The proceeding arose from the Commissioner’s investigation into the scraping of Facebook user data by the app “thisisyourdigitallife” (TYDL) and its subsequent selling of the data to Cambridge Analytica for psychographic modeling purposes between November 2013 and December 2015. The Federal Court(2023 FC 533), dismissed the Commissioner’s application, finding that the Commissioner had not shown that Facebook failed to obtain meaningful consent from users for disclosure of their data, nor that Facebook failed to adequately safeguard user data. I would allow the appeal. The Federal Court erred in its analysis of meaningful consent and safeguarding under PIPEDA. I conclude that Facebook breached PIPEDA’s requirement that it obtain meaningful consent from users prior to data disclosure and failed in its obligation to safeguard user data. … Put more simply, if the reasonable person would not have understood what they consented to, no amount of reasonable efforts on the part of the corporation can change that conclusion. Having regard to the purpose of PIPEDA, the consent of the individual, objectively determined, prevails. … These practices, taken together, lead only to the conclusion that Facebook did not adequately inform users of the risks to their data upon signing up to Facebook (risks that materialized in the case of TYDL and Cambridge Analytica). Therefore, meaningful consent was not obtained. As will be discussed below, these same practices and measures—or lack thereof—inform Facebook’s breach of its safeguarding duties. |
Application for leave
Applications for leave to appeal have been filed on the following intellectual property related proceedings.
| SCC File No. | Status | Style of Cause | Appeal File No. | Excerpt from Appeal Decision |
| 41926 | Application for leave filed 2025-08-07 | Bell Canada, et al v. Copyright Collective of Canada, et al | A-57-24 | 2025 FCA 92: The case concerns judicial review of a Redetermination Decision made by the Copyright Board of Canada setting royalty rates for the retransmission of distant television signals for 2014-2018. The primary legal issue was whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing matters not outlined in a previous judicial review decision that identified specific errors in the Board’s calculations.
The Federal Court of Appeal determined that the Board did exceed its jurisdiction by making additional modifications, including double-counting corrections and altering profit margins beyond those specified in the earlier decision. Specifically, while the Board corrected one error by applying the correct omitted payment data and a 10% profit margin for Canadian services, it incorrectly applied a 25% margin for US services without adequate justification. Consequently, the court concluded that the Redetermination Decision was flawed and required further revisions in line with the jurisdictional limitations established in the prior ruling. |
| 42091 | Application for leave filed 2025-11-10 | Stikeman Elliott LLP v Centric Brands Holding LLC | A-95-24 | 2025 FCA 161: Centric appeals a decision 2024 FC 204 that dismissed its appeal of a decision of the TMOB 2022 TMOB 168. … For the reasons that follow, I would allow Centric’s appeal … and set aside the expungement of the Mark’s registration. … The Federal Court concluded that the relevant period to be considered with regard to the Notice would not begin with Centric’s acquisition of the Mark and would instead include the time during which the previous owner of the Mark had title. The Federal Court considered Centric’s evidence concerning non-use by the previous owner but found that it did not amount to special circumstances as contemplated in subsection 45(3) of the Act. … In my view, there is nothing in the text, the context or the purpose of section 45 that excludes the possibility that a recent arms’ length acquisition of a trademark may constitute special circumstances such that the acquirer could be relieved of the obligation to provide evidence of use, or justify a period of non-use, prior to the acquisition. … For these reasons, it is my view that the Federal Court erred in law in refusing to apply the New Owner Jurisprudence on the basis that the acquisition of the Mark had not yet closed at the time of issuance of the Notice. Therefore, the Federal Court’s Decision should be set aside. … Accordingly, Centric was not in as good a position as the previous owner to explain non-use of the Mark during the period prior to the signing of the Agreement. This is good justification to apply the New Owner Jurisprudence in this case and assess special circumstances from the date of signing the Agreement. … In this case, I am convinced that the recent acquisition of the Mark, together with the short time until the end of the relevant period, constitute special circumstances excusing the absence of use. |
| 42253 | Application for leave filed 2026-03-12 | Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne, et al. v. Coors Brewing Company | A-125-24 | 2026 FCA 2: This appeal involved the interpretation of Section 45 of the Trademarks Act concerning the obligation of a registered trademark owner to justify periods of non-use. The central issue was whether the reference point for non-use should begin from the mark’s last use or from its acquisition by the new owner. The appellants contended that the Federal Court erred in allowing the acquisition date to serve as a possible starting point. However, the Federal Court upheld the Registrar’s decision, affirming that the new owner is not obliged to account for non-use prior to acquisition as long as special circumstances justify the absence of use from that date. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the court confirming that there was no legal obligation to demonstrate use prior to the acquisition of the trademark, aligning with the principles established in Centric Brands. The Registrar’s decision to maintain the registrations was upheld, demonstrating the complexities of trademark use and ownership. |
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.