Matters scheduled at Federal Court this week involve intellectual property law and class actions
This week, hearings set before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court included matters relating to alleged copyright infringement, patent impeachment, class proceedings, class counsel fees, and a request for disqualification of counsel.
The appeal court scheduled Voltage Pictures, LLC et al. v. Salna et al., A-189-23 on Oct. 29, Tuesday. In this case, the appellants asked the appeal court to certify the underlying application as a class proceeding.
The underlying application alleged copyright infringement relating to various copyrighted films, including through the illegal upload and distribution of these works for free over the internet without authorization or consent.
The court set Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v Janssen Biotech, Inc., T-2324-23 on Oct. 28, Monday. This patent impeachment action concerned a drug used to treat moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. The plaintiff moved for the issuance of a commission and letters of request to inventors residing in the U.S.
Last July 23, in Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 2024 FC 1147, the Federal Court dismissed the motion. The court noted that the defendant agreed to make the inventors available and proposed a timetable for all examinations within the deadline set in a scheduling direction.
The court scheduled Bell Canada et al v. WatchNSaveNow Inc. et al, T-759-16 on Oct. 28, Monday. This case involved allegations of copyright infringement. In February 2022, in Bell Canada v. Nie, 2022 CanLII 7552 (FC), the Federal Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment.
The court found violations of ss. 2.4(1.1), 3(1)(f), and 27(1) of the Copyright Act, 1985, given that the defendants advertised, offered for sale, and sold pre-loaded set-top boxes that allowed users to access the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works by telecommunication from a chosen time and place.
The court set the cases of Moushoom et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, T-402-19; Assembly of First Nations et al v. His Majesty the King, T-141-20; and Assembly of First Nations et al v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1120-21 on Oct. 29, Tuesday.
The underlying class actions alleged that Canada discriminatorily operated and chronically underfunded the First Nations Child and Family Services program on reserves and in the Yukon. Canada also allegedly breached s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to offer non-discriminatory access to essential health and social services.
The parties settled the three class actions, with Canada agreeing to pay over $23 billion in damages for discriminatory conduct and agreeing to fund additional support for the affected First Nations youths and families.
The plaintiffs’ class counsel in the proceedings – Sotos LLP; Kugler Kandestin LLP; Miller Titerle + Co.; Nahwegahbow, Corbiere; and Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP – filed a motion seeking the approval of their class counsel fees.
Last Dec. 21, in Moushoom v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1739, the Federal Court approved the fees amounting to $40 million plus disbursement and taxes. The court ordered Canada to pay the fees in line with the final settlement agreement’s terms.
The court scheduled Atas v. The Attorney General of Canada et al., T-721-23 on Oct. 30, Wednesday. In the underlying complaint, the applicant challenged unfavourable rulings made in proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The Canadian Judicial Council summarily dismissed the applicant’s complaint against numerous judges. The applicant moved to disqualify certain lawyers of Stockwoods LLP as counsel of one of the judges involved in these proceedings based on an alleged conflict of interest.
Last June 13, in Atas v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 908, the Federal Court entirely dismissed the motion. The court found no solicitor-client relationship between the applicant and Stockwoods and no disclosure of confidential information by the applicant to the firm.
