Cases scheduled at Federal Court this week involve intellectual property law
This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court included matters arising from decisions of the Tax Court of Canada and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and allegations of copyright and patent infringement.
Federal Court of Appeal
The appeal court set His Majesty the King v. 632738 Alberta Ltd., A-209-23 on Oct. 22, Tuesday. This appeal challenged the Tax Court’s interlocutory order, which denied the appellant’s request to compel responses to specified disputed discovery questions on the basis that the respondent did not waive solicitor-client privilege.
The appeal court scheduled 506992 N.W.T. Ltd. o/a Cabin Radio v. Attorney General of Canada et al, A-101-23 on Oct. 24, Thursday. This judicial review application sought to quash or to set aside the CRTC’s broadcasting decision as unreasonable and/or unlawful.
This broadcasting decision denied the applicant the opportunity to have its commercial radio licence considered on the basis that the Yellowknife market could not support an additional commercial radio station.
Federal Court
The court set GE Renewable Energy Canada Inc v. Canmec Industrial Inc., T-1471-21 on Oct. 21, Monday. In this copyright infringement action, the plaintiff GE Renewable Energy Canada Inc (GEREC) wanted to further amend its amended statement of claim:
- to add 272 works to the 33 works constituting the “GEREC Designs” that were allegedly infringed
- to add infringement allegations relating to the “GEREC Construction & Installation Works,” a new category of 306 works
- to make the third party a defendant to the main action and to add allegations that it infringed both the “GEREC Designs” and the “GEREC Construction & Installation Works”
Last June 11, in GE Renewable Energy Canada Inc. v. Canmec Industrial Inc., 2024 FC 887, the Federal Court dismissed GEREC’s motion except to make certain minor amendments. The court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to allow GEREC to make the proposed amendments at this stage of the proceeding.
The court determined that the request for amendments was untimely and that the proposed amendments would require further discovery and the trial’s adjournment, as well as a material expansion of the action’s scope late in the proceeding, particularly in connection with the “GEREC Construction & Installation Works.”
The court scheduled Indigo Books & Music Inc. v. John Doe 1 dba Indigo Kills Kids et al, T-2304-24 on Oct. 22, Tuesday. This matter involved allegations of copyright infringement. Last Sept. 17, in Indigo Books & Music Inc. v. John Doe 1 (Indigo Kills Kids), 2024 FC 1465, the Federal Court issued an interim domain blocking order, subject to certain outlined terms.
The court found the interim domain blocking order necessary and proportional to limit the harm to the plaintiff and the potential risk to untargeted websites until a hearing of the merits of a motion for interlocutory relief.
The court decided that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, which succeeded in showing a serious issue of copyright infringement relating to the !INDIGOKIDS work and depreciation of the goodwill attaching to the INDIGO marks, particularly !NDIGOKIDS and the !ndigokids design.
The court set Adeia Guides, Inc. v. Videotron Ltd., T-841-21 on Oct. 23, Wednesday. Here, the plaintiff moved to compel the defendant to answer questions unanswered or allegedly insufficiently answered from an examination for discovery arising out of certain pleading amendments.
The plaintiff’s pleadings amendments added allegations of infringement of existing asserted patent claims against a service already alleged to infringe other patents and against a service allegedly analogous to an existing allegedly infringing service of the defendant.
Last Aug. 1, in Adeia Guides, Inc. v. Videotron Ltd., 2024 FC 1229, the Federal Court ordered the defendant to answer certain specified items by providing its knowledge, information, and beliefs. The court otherwise dismissed the plaintiff’s motion to compel.
