Cases scheduled at federal courts this week involve intellectual property law
This week, hearings scheduled before the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, and Federal Court included matters relating to divorce, custody, airport and marine security, patent and trademark infringement, and licence fees.
The Supreme Court set Dunmore v. Mehralian, 41108 on Dec. 9, Monday. The parties in this case married, lived together in Oman and in Ontario at different points, had a son born in Ontario, then separated.
The ex-wife and the child stayed in Ontario, where she brought proceedings requesting a divorce, property equalization, and other relief. Meanwhile, the ex-husband moved to Oman, where he commenced a court proceeding seeking a divorce and joint custody.
The Omani court decided that Oman had jurisdiction and that the parties validly divorced under Omani law. It awarded primary custody of the son to the ex-wife. At the Ontario Superior Court, the ex-husband moved for orders recognizing the Omani divorce’s validity in Ontario and returning the child to Oman.
Two Ontario judges separately tackled these issues, with the first ruling that the Omani divorce should be recognized in Ontario and the second refusing to order the son’s return to Oman. The ex-wife appealed the first order, while the ex-husband appealed the second. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.
The Supreme Court scheduled Opsis Airport Services Inc. v. Attorney General of Québec, et al., 40786 on Dec. 11, Wednesday. The appellant in this case operated an emergency call dispatch centre at Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport.
The appellant was charged with operating an enterprise carrying on private security activities without an appropriate agency licence under ss. 4 and 114 of Quebec’s Private Security Act (PSA). The appellant challenged the PSA’s constitutional applicability. The Court of Québec found the PSA applicable, accepted the guilty pleas, and convicted the appellant of the offences.
The Quebec Superior Court declared the PSA inapplicable to the appellant’s activities under the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine. It allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and acquitted the appellant of the offences. The PSA intruded on the core of federal aeronautics power, including airport security, the judge said.
The Quebec Court of Appeal’s majority allowed the appeal, set aside the Superior Court’s judgment, and affirmed the convictions imposed by the Court of Québec.
The Supreme Court set Quebec Maritime Services Inc., et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al., 40791 on Dec. 11, Wednesday. The individual appellant in this case was charged with contravening s. 116 of the PSA by carrying on a private security activity without an agent licence.
The corporate appellant, a company within the international shipping industry, was charged with contravening s. 117 of the PSA by employing him. The appellants alleged that the PSA’s provisions were constitutionally inapplicable to them.
The Court of Québec acquitted the appellants of the offences upon finding the provisions inapplicable and inoperative as to them in the context of the case. The PSA’s application to the corporate appellant’s operations significantly intruded on marine transportation security, the court said.
The Quebec Superior Court allowed the respondents’ appeal, set aside the trial judgment, convicted the appellants of the offences, and ordered them to pay the minimum fines. The Quebec Court of Appeal’s majority dismissed the appeal.
The appeal court scheduled Usinage Pro-24 Inc. c/o/b as Nordik Blades v. Valley Blades Ltd., A-25-24 on Dec. 10, Tuesday. The appellants in this case owned two Canadian patents for an adjustable sweeping blade device and sweeping blade assembly. They asked the appeal court to declare certain claims of these patents valid and infringed.
The appeal court set Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd. et al. v. Arc Resources Ltd. et al., A-361-23 on Dec. 11, Wednesday. The appellant Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd. owned a patent for liquefaction apparatus, methods, and systems. This appeal sought to set aside a Federal Court judgment relating to invalidated claims of the patent.
The appeal court scheduled 1048547 Ontario Inc. v. Fromfroid S.A., A-247-23 on Dec. 12, Thursday. The respondent in this case owned a patent for a device for sealing a system for conditioning products on a palette. This appeal arose from an infringement claim relating to the respondent’s patent.
The court set Canadian Inspection Ltd v. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Attorney General of Canada, T-89-24 on Dec. 11, Wednesday. The respondent Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission issued an industrial radiography licence to the applicant. The underlying matter concerned licence-related disputes between the parties in connection with the calculation of licence fees.
The applicant requested injunctive relief to maintain the licence’s validity pending the outcome of a judicial review. Last Mar. 1, in Canadian Inspection Ltd. v. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, 2024 FC 346, the Federal Court issued a decision that dismissed the motion for injunctive relief sought by the applicant.
The court scheduled dTechs EPM Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority et al., T-227-17 on Dec. 11, Wednesday. The plaintiff, which owned a patent for an electrical profile monitoring system for the detection of atypical consumption, alleged that the defendants infringed specified patent claims.
In March 2021, in dTechs EPM Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 2021 FC 190, the Federal Court found no infringement of the asserted claims on the part of either defendant. The asserted claims were invalid based on anticipation and obviousness, the court said.
The court set KRBL Limited v. P.K.Overseas (P) Limited et al., T-1188-15 on Dec. 11, Wednesday. The plaintiff in this case brought a trademark infringement action in July 2015, which was stayed from around May 2019 to early 2024 until the potential resolution of related proceedings in India.
The plaintiff moved for an extension of time to serve and file submissions responding to a notice of status review. Last Oct. 23, in KRBL Limited v. P. K. Overseas (P) Ltd., 2024 FC 1672, the Federal Court dismissed this motion and dismissed the action for delay.
