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 August 5, 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 |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 42312 | Application for leave filed 2026-04-20 | Clearview AI Inc. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, et al. | 2026 BCCA 67: Court Summary: This appeal arises from a judicial review of the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner’s decision that the appellant, Clearview AI Inc., contravened the Protection of Information and Privacy Act by collecting facial data of British Columbians from social media websites without their consent to use in its facial recognition business. The Commissioner prohibited Clearview from offering its facial recognition services in BC and required it to make best efforts to stop collecting facial data of British Columbians without their consent and delete the facial data of British Columbians in its possession. Clearview argues that PIPA does not apply to it as a matter of constitutional law, PIPA does not require it to obtain individual consent, and the Commissioner’s order was overbroad, unnecessary, and unenforceable. HELD: Appeal dismissed. PIPA is constitutionally applicable to Clearview because there is a real and substantial connection between its online activities and the province. It was reasonable for the Commissioner to conclude that PIPA does not exempt Clearview from obtaining individual consent because the information was not “publicly available”, and Clearview did not have reasonable purpose such that consent was statutorily implied. The Order is enforceable and was a reasonable exercise of remedial discretion. | |
| 42358 | Application for leave filed 2026-06-19 | Proslide Technology Inc. v. Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. | A-331-24 | 2026 FCA 59: These legal questions arise from a decision of the Federal Court (2024 FC 1439), which concluded that numerous claims of several patents owned by ProSlide were invalid and also not infringed by WhiteWater. … Despite my acknowledgement that claiming more broadly than the invention made is a distinct ground of invalidity from claiming more broadly than the invention disclosed, it does not follow that the invention made (or contemplated) should be determined without reference to the patent specification. On the contrary, in most cases, it is difficult to imagine a more reliable (and more timely) indication of what the inventor contemplated than the patent specification. … In my view, the Federal Court erred in finding that the features discussed above were key aspects of the invention whose omission from the asserted claims could lead to a conclusion of overclaiming. I would reverse the Federal Court’s finding that the asserted claims are invalid for overclaiming. … The asserted claims concern slide features for amusement rides, and WhiteWater’s activities in Canada did not extend to physically using the claimed slide features. The extent to which WhiteWater’s designs, drawings and testing had advanced does not alter this fact. … Much of the parties’ submissions on the first argument (concerning the required level of disclosure) relate to whether a heightened disclosure requirement applies when sound prediction of utility is in issue and, if so, whether such heightened disclosure requirement applies generally or only to inventions related to new uses of known compounds or articles. It is not necessary to answer these questions in this case because (i) the Federal Court applied a heightened disclosure requirement and still found that the disclosure requirement had been met in the 552 Patent Family (see paragraphs 149 and 259 to 261 of the FC Decision), and (ii) as explained in the paragraphs below, I find that the Federal Court did not err in its conclusion that the asserted claims do not lack utility. |
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.