Federal Court cases this week involve income tax and intellectual property law
This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court involved matters relating to claims of patent and copyright infringement, income tax, and allegations of price fixing.
Federal Court of Appeal
The Federal Court of Appeal set the related cases of Munchkin, Inc et al. v. Angelcare Canada Inc. et al., A-105-22 and Angelcare Canada Inc. et al. v. Munchkin, Inc. et al., A-106-22 on June 4, Tuesday.
A trial judge of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Munchkin, Inc. – a California-based infant and toddler products company – infringed certain patents owned by Angelcare Canada Inc., a Montreal-based baby products company.
Munchkin’s appeal asked the appellate court to set aside the Federal Court’s judgment. Munchkin alleged that it was not liable for any patent infringement in Canada.
Angelcare’s appeal sought to partly set aside the judgment. Angelcare argued that the trial judge should have found that Munchkin’s products also infringed claims 9 and 10 of Canadian patent 2,640,384 and claims 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of Canadian patent 2,855,159.
Federal Court
The court scheduled Topher's Beard Company v. Olin Corporation et al, T-1365-20 on June 3, Monday. The plaintiff requested an order certifying the action as a class proceeding and appointing it as representative plaintiff.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants conspired and agreed with each other and with other unknown co-conspirators to raise, to maintain, to fix, and/or to stabilize the price of caustic soda in North America and elsewhere.
The court set GE Renewable Energy Canada Inc v. Canmec Industrial Inc., T-1471-21 on June 4, Tuesday. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed its copyright in the course of refurbishing a power plant owned by a third party, Rio Tinto Alcan Inc.
The third party filed a motion seeking to examine for the purpose of discovery an engineer who was employed by the plaintiff’s French affiliate and who was identified as the author of most of the works allegedly infringed.
Last Feb. 28, in GE Renewable Energy Canada Inc. v. Canmec Industrial Inc., 2024 FC 322, the Federal Court dismissed the motion and ordered the third party to pay the plaintiff the motion’s costs plus reasonable disbursements, including expert fees. Under s. 13(3) of the Copyright Act, 1985, the plaintiff’s French affiliate, as the engineer’s employer, was deemed the first owner of the Canadian copyright in the works that he authored, the court said.
The court set Ministre du Revenu National c. Hydro-Quebec, T-1329-19 on June 4, Tuesday. The Minister of National Revenue wanted to serve on the respondent a notice under s. 231.2(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1985 to require the provision of information and the production of documents relating to a certain group of unnamed persons.
On Dec. 20, 2021, in Canada (National Revenue) v. Hydro-Québec, 2021 FC 1438, the Federal Court dismissed the application and awarded the respondent costs. The court denied the requirement for information based on res judicata. The court explained that the minister was asking it to decide a case identical in its object, cause, and parties to what was already decided in Canada (National Revenue) v Hydro-Québec, 2018 FC 622.
The court scheduled Lola Sheppard, DBA Lateral Office et al v. C S Design Inc. et al, T-481-23 on June 5, Wednesday. In 2015, the plaintiffs, a Toronto-based architecture practice, and the defendant CS Design Inc. (CSD), a Montreal-based architecture firm, teamed up to create Impulse, an installation consisting of luminous seesaws.
Later, CSD and the plaintiffs discussed potentially producing new seesaws and creating a new work. Defendant L4 Studio Inc. (L4) began that production and ultimately produced a new work named Wave-Field in 2017–18. In 2023, L4 and defendant Wireframe Studio Inc. started touring a new production called WIP WAP.
The plaintiffs filed an action claiming that WIP WAP infringed its copyright in Impulse. They moved for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from presenting or authorizing the presentation of WIP WAP.
On Mar. 24, 2023, in Sheppard v. C S Design Inc., 2023 FC 413, the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants and that the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief failed to show irreparable harm.
