Canadian Case Law Flashcards
(27 cards)
Name the leading Canadian Supreme Court case pertaining to novelty and obviousness.
Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc., 2008 SCC 61, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 265
What is the case Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc., 2008 SCC 61 know for?
It’s the leading court case pertaining to novelty and obviousness.
Name a Canadian court case pertaining to the statement:
Not an infringement if activities occur fully outside of Canada.
Domco Industries Ltd v. Mannington Mills inc. (1988), 29 C.P.R.
What is the court case Domco Industries Ltd v. Mannington Mills inc. (1988), 29 C.P.R. known for?
Not infringement if activities occur fully outside of Canada.
Name a Canadian court case pertaining to the statement:
Importation deprives patentee of full enjoyment of its monopoly.
Monsanto v. Scheider, 2004, SCC 34
What does the case Monsanto v. Schmeiser 2004, SCC 34 say about importation?
Importation deprives patentee of full enjoyment of its monopoly.
What does the case Domco Industries Ltd v. Armstrong Cork Canada Ltd, 1982 known for?
Non-exclusive licensee can bring infringement action.
What court case pertained to non-exclusive licensees being able to bring infringement action?
Domco Industries Ltd v. Armstrong Cork Canada Ltd, 1982
What does the case Comstock Canada v. Elected Ltd. (1991), 38 C.P.R. (3d) 29 (F.C.T.D) known for?
Employees own invention unless employed for purpose of inventing.
What court case pertains to the statement:
Employees own invention unless employed for purpose of inventing.
Comstock Canada v. Elected Ltd. (1991), 38 C.P.R. (3d) 29 (F.C.T.D)
What does the court case Canmar Foods Ltd v TA Foods Ltd, 2019 FC 1233 known for?
The use of foreign prosecution history estoppel
What is the case Rucker Co v Gavel’s Vulcanizing Ltd (1985), 7 CPR (3d) 294. best known for?
Recycling can be interpreted as remanufacture and thus infringement.
What is the case Rucker Co v Gavel’s Vulcanizing Ltd (1986) 7 C.P.R. (3d), 6 C.I.P.R. 137 (F.C.T.D.) best known for?
Repair to patented article is not infringement
Cite the case law supporting the following statement:
Repair to a patented article is not infringement.
Rucker Co v Gavel’s Vulcanizing Ltd (1986) 7 C.P.R. (3d), 6 C.I.P.R. 137 (F.C.T.D.)
Cite the leading court case regarding springboard profits (requiring an infringer to account for profits it made even after the patent’s expiry).
Dow Chemicals vs. Nova chemicals 2017 FC 350
For what type of damages is the court case Dow Chemicals vs. Nova chemicals 2017 FC 350 known for?
Springboard profits (requiring an infringer to account for profits it made even after the patent’s expiry)
Name the things the court case Windsurfing International Inc. v. Trilantic Corp. (1985), 8 C.P.R. (3d) is known for.
Infringement if selling kit that can only be assembled into a patented article.
- Without assembly there can be no purpose in a purchaser buying the unassembled parts.
What is court case most pertaining to induced infringement?
MacLennan et al. v. Produits Gilbert Inc., 2008 FCA 35
What is the court case most cited regarding the principle of claim differentiation?
“Expressed broadly, the principle of claim differentiation is that a limitation of one claim cannot be read into another.”
Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc., 2004 FC 88
What is the court case Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc., 2004 FC 88 best known for?
Describes the principle of claim differentiation.
“Expressed broadly, the principle of claim differentiation is that a limitation of one claim cannot be read into another.”
What court case pertains to the following statement:
Infringement occurs only when the accused product takes all the essential elements of the claims.
Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc., 2000, SCC 66
What court cases pertains to the following statement:
A non-infringing alternative needs too be economically viable.
Apotex v. Lilly 2018 FC 217 or
Apotex v. Merk 2015 FCA 171
What is the court case MacLennan et al. v. Produits Gilbert Inc., 2008 FCA 35 best known for?
Test for induced infringement.
The three factor test was paraphrased by the Court as:
- there must be an act of infringement by the direct infringer;
- this act must be influenced by the seller to the point where, without this influence, infringement by the buyer would not otherwise take place;
- the influence must be knowingly exercised by the seller, i.e., the seller knows that this influence will result in the completion of the act of infringement.
What is the court case most cited regarding the test for induced infringement?
- there must be an act of infringement by the direct infringer;
- this act must be influenced by the seller to the point where, without this influence, infringement by the buyer would not otherwise take place;
- the influence must be knowingly exercised by the seller, i.e., the seller knows that this influence will result in the completion of the act of infringement.
MacLennan et al. v. Produits Gilbert Inc., 2008 FCA 35
