Cases scheduled at Federal Court in early January involve intellectual property law
The court set the cases of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Amgen Canada Inc., T-1094-23 and Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Amgen Canada Inc., T-1095-23 on Jan. 7, Tuesday. Here, the plaintiffs commenced proceedings under s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133.
The defendant moved for leave to amend its second amended statement of defence. The proposed amendments included changes contemplated under s. 53 of the Patent Act, 1985. On July 22, 2024, in Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Canada Inc., 2024 FC 1137, the Federal Court partly granted the motion.
The court scheduled Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v Janssen Biotech, Inc., T-2324-23 on Jan. 8, Wednesday. The plaintiff in this case filed an action to impeach Canadian patent 3,113,837 in connection with the defendant’s ustekinumab product, which was a drug used to treat moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
The defendant moved to add a counterclaim to this patent impeachment action. On Oct. 29, 2024, in Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 2024 FC 1715, the Federal Court dismissed the motion. The court decided that the proposed counterclaim was insufficiently particularized and lacking a reasonable cause of action.
The court set The Noco Company, Inc. v. Shenzhen Yike Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., T-484-21 on Jan. 8, Wednesday. Here, the plaintiff alleged that certain vehicle battery jump starters offered for sale by the defendants infringed claims of Canadian patent 2,916,782. Under s. 60(2) of the Patent Act, some defendants argued that certain of their products did not infringe the patent claims.
The court dismissed these defendants’ summary trial motion. Last Sept. 8, 2023, in Noco Company, Inc. v. Guangzhou Unique Electronics Co., Ltd., 2023 FC 1214, the Federal Court ordered these defendants to pay the plaintiff costs of the motion amounting to $114,080. The court found a lump sum award of 40 percent of the fees incurred reasonable.
The court scheduled Louis Dreyfus Company Canada ULC v. Canadian National Railway Company, T-1292-15 on Jan. 8, Wednesday. The plaintiff in this case brought an action for damages under s. 116(5) of the Canada Transportation Act, 1996. The Canadian Transportation Agency decided that the defendant breached statutory service obligations that it owed to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff moved for leave to file and serve a reply expert report. On May 31, 2024, in Louis Dreyfus Company Canada ULC v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2024 FC 832, the Federal Court granted the motion. The court ruled that the reply was admissible and proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues in this case.
The court set Jost v. Attorney General of Canada, T-972-17 on Jan. 8, Wednesday. The plaintiff in this case experienced delays in receiving his pension benefits. He applied to certify a class proceeding on behalf of fellow retirees from the Canadian Armed Forces. The defendant opposed certification on the ground that the action failed to meet the five preconditions.
On Nov. 4, 2019, in Jost v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1356, the Federal Court granted the application and certified the class action. The court found a reasonable cause of action, an identifiable class, and common factual and legal questions. The court added that a class proceeding was the preferred procedure and that the plaintiff was the appropriate representative.
The court scheduled Adeia Guides, Inc. et al. v. BCE Inc. et al., T-1184-21 on Jan. 9, Thursday. The plaintiffs here brought an action alleging that the defendants infringed the Canadian patents numbered 2,691,719; 2,952,467; 2,753,243; and 2,631,957. The alleged infringement related to video programming, recordings, and content.
On Nov. 18, 2024, in Adeia Guides, Inc. v. BCE Inc., 2024 FC 1842, the Federal Court allowed the defendants to serve and file the proposed second amended statement of defence and counterclaim, subject to certain revisions in the pleading. The court also permitted the plaintiffs to conduct an additional examination for discovery relating to the amendments.
The court set EMD Serono, a Division of EMD Inc., Canada et al. v. Apotex Inc., T-1039-23 on Jan. 9, Thursday. In this proceeding under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant infringed claims of Canadian patent 2,588,966 relating to medicine seeking to treat multiple sclerosis.
Both parties moved to compel the other side to answer certain questions. On July 23, 2024, in EMD Serono v. Apotex Inc, 2024 FC 1162, the Federal Court ordered the plaintiffs to answer the first item in the defendant’s motion to compel. On the other hand, the court held that the defendant need not answer three specified items in the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
