Patent impeachment and infringement actions set before Federal Court
This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court involved issues relating to income tax, excise tax, immigration law, intellectual property law, Charter rights, and the disclosure of information.
The court set Iris Technologies Inc. v. His Majesty the King, A-259-22 on Feb. 27, Tuesday. The appellant moved for an order finding the implied undertaking rule inapplicable to seven documents produced by the respondent or waiving the rule if it was otherwise applicable. This appeal sought to set aside the Tax Court of Canada’s dismissal of the appellant’s motion.
The court scheduled Ehtesham A Rafique v. Minister of National Revenue, A-242-22 on Feb. 28, Wednesday. This income tax appeal asked the appellate court to vacate two assessment notices and to rescind an award of costs in the respondent’s favour. The judge of the Tax Court of Canada allegedly disregarded the factual grounds and legal basis.
The court set Pfizer Canada ULC et al v. Uniqure Biopharma B.V., T-2118-22 on Feb. 26, Monday. The plaintiffs filed an underlying action to impeach a patent relating to a protein that could be used in gene therapy to treat hemophilia B. The defendant moved to stay the action.
Last May 1, in Pfizer Canada ULC v. Uniqure Biopharma B.V., 2023 FC 629, the Federal Court dismissed the motion of the defendant. Staying the action would not serve the interests of justice, the court said.
The court scheduled The Noco Company, Inc. v. Shenzhen Yike Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., T-484-21 on Feb. 26, Monday. The plaintiff’s patent infringement action alleged that certain vehicle battery jump starters that the defendants offered for sale in Canada infringed claims of the patent.
Some of the defendants moved for a summary trial. On Feb. 13, 2023, in Noco Company, Inc. v. Guangzhou Unique Electronics Co., Ltd., 2023 FC 208, the Federal Court dismissed the motion for a summary trial.
The court set the cases of NCS Multistage Inc. v. Kobold Corporation, et al, T-1420-18 and NCS Multistage Inc. v. Promac Industries Ltd., T-567-20 on Feb. 27, Tuesday. The action and counteraction involved six patents relating to tools and sleeves used to drill multistage horizontal oil wells for hydrocarbons.
Last Nov. 7, in NCS Multistage Inc. v. Kobold Corporation, 2023 FC 1486, the Federal Court issued a decision declaring that certain claims of five of these patents had always been invalid and that certain claims of the sixth patent were valid and infringed.
The court scheduled Attorney General of Canada v. Patrick Gordon Macdonald et al., DES-5-23 on Feb. 27, Tuesday. This application sought an order under s. 38.06(3) of the Canada Evidence Act, 1985 confirming a prohibition of disclosure of certain information.
Counsel for Public Prosecution Service of Canada advised that it was being required to disclose sensitive or potentially injurious information in connection with criminal proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice.
The court set Denis Loshaj v. The Governor in Council et al., T-70-24 on Feb. 27, Tuesday. The applicant alleged that the Privy Council’s clerk abused the process by objecting to the disclosure of unredacted versions of the certified tribunal records in two court files through certificates issued under s. 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.
The applicant also claimed that s. 39 deprived him of his rights to life, liberty, or security of the person in a manner that failed to comply with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court scheduled Minister of National Revenue v. Payfirma Corporation, T-465-23 on Feb. 27, Tuesday. This application sought an order under s. 231.2(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1985 (ITA) and s. 289(3) of the Excise Tax Act, 1985 (ETA).
The requested order would authorize the applicant to impose on the respondent a requirement under s. 231.2(1) of the ITA and s. 289(1) of the ETA to provide information and documents relating to an ascertainable group of unnamed persons.
The court set SKGO v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-13666-22 on Feb. 29, Thursday. The applicant, a citizen of Colombia, unsuccessfully requested a pre-removal risk assessment under s.112(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001. She applied for leave and judicial review to challenge the refusal.
The applicant moved to stay her scheduled removal from Canada pending the final determination of her application. On Jan. 19, 2023, in SKGO v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 83, the Federal Court granted the motion, The applicant met the three-part test for a stay, the court found.
