Tag Archives: Supreme Court of Canada

Intervenor Promise

The Supreme Court of Canada granted intervenor status on the six motions to intervene in the ‘promise doctrine’ proceeding: Innovative Medicines Canada and BIOTECanada (jointly); the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP); the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA); the Fédération internationale des conseils en propriété intellectuelle (FICPI); the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC). See my earlier post on the intervenors and their materials. Continue reading Intervenor Promise

Intervenor Promise

The Supreme Court of Canada will be hearing AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. on November 8, 2016 on the promised utility doctrine. Several intervenors have now filed materials on the promise doctrine: Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC), International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI), Innovative Medicines Canada, BioteCanada, Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP) and Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA).

Continue reading Intervenor Promise

SCC grants leave on Google injunction

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in the case of Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., et. al, an appeal from a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision, in which a broad worldwide injunction was granted restraining Google, a non-party to the action, from including the defendants’ websites in Google’s search results.

Continue reading SCC grants leave on Google injunction

SCC and Technological Neutrality

The Supreme Court of Canada released an important ruling today on the role of technological neutrality in copyright law. In a 7-2 split decision in Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada v. SODRAC 2003 Inc., et al., Justice Rothstein writing for the majority affirmed the principle of technological neutrality and held that royalties must be paid for ephemeral copies of works made by broadcasters for the purpose of facilitating broadcasting. However the majority also remanded a determination of the value of the licenses for those copyrights to the Copyright Board in order to take into account technological neutrality. A strong dissent by Justice Abella (agreed to in part by Justice Karakatsanis) disagreed that copyright applied to ephemeral copies, at all.
Continue reading SCC and Technological Neutrality

Section 8 at the SCC

On Monday, April 20th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Sanofi-Aventis’ appeal in Apotex’s Ramipril proceeding pursuant to Section 8 of the Patented Medicine (Notice of Compliance Regulations). The appeal is from the March 2014 split decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in 2014 FCA 68 relating to among other things the ‘hypothetical world’, the ramp-up period and non-indicated uses.

Continue reading Section 8 at the SCC

Updates

Here are some updates on previously posted items: