DOCSLIB.ORG

Advantages Making the Federal Court of Canada an Increasingly Desirable Forum for Intellectual Property Disputes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Advantages Making the Federal Court of Canada an Increasingly Desirable Forum for Intellectual Property Disputes Advantages Making the Federal Court of Canada an Increasingly Desirable Forum for Intellectual Property Disputes August 23, 2018 By Andrew McIntosh, Joshua Spicer and Adam Bobker The vast majority of IP litigants in Canada already make the Federal Court their choice of forum. This spring, the Canadian government pledged significant resources to advance a national intellectual property strategy aimed at further improving access to the best possible IP resources for businesses and innovators. Part of the strategy includes funding to appoint additional judges and streamline dispute resolution. While the full scope of the government’s initiative has yet to be announced, the new measures are expected to add to the Federal Court’s existing tools available to parties seeking timely and cost effective adjudication of their IP disputes. In the meantime, there are already a number of advantages to litigating IP disputes in the Federal Court in Canada: 1. Expedited schedules and effective case management: In most cases the Court will set a schedule to get a case to trial within 2 years. By statute, pharmaceutical patent infringement actions brought under the PM(NOC) regulations must be heard and decided within 24 months. When parties proceed by way of application on affidavit evidence only (and no discovery), early hearing dates are also available. Pre-trial proceedings are actively managed from an early stage by a case management judge (usually a “prothonotary”) assigned to the case and in some instances through early intervention of the trial judge. 2. No collateral proceedings in the patent office: Issued Canadian patents are not subject to inter partes review in the patent office. Unlike in the US where defendants routinely institute IPR proceedings following the commencement of an infringement action, there is no equivalent in Canada. Actions in the Federal Court generally advance to trial without interruption. 3. Proportionate, consultative discovery: The Court expects the parties to consult and provide proportionate discovery relevant to the issues in a case. The volume of documents produced and length of oral examinations is considerably less than typical in corresponding US litigation. Oral examination is limited to one representative per party and the inventor(s) in patent proceedings. There are no pre-trial expert depositions. The Federal Court’s practice guidelines provide for one day of examination per scheduled week of trial, and one hour of arising motions per day of discovery. 4. Experienced judges: A single judge — not a jury — hears and decides all trials. Although there is no official roster of specialized judges hearing IP cases, an informal group has developed considerable expertise in all aspects of intellectual property. A number of judges have science or engineering backgrounds and practiced as IP litigation counsel. 5. Canada-wide relief: Unlike the provincial superior courts, the Federal Court has national jurisdiction. It can hear Bereskin & Parr LLP | bereskinparr.com 5. Canada-wide relief: Unlike the provincial superior courts, the Federal Court has national jurisdiction. It can hear disputes with a presence in multiple provinces and grant relief, including injunctions, which is binding and enforceable across the country. 6. Limited appellate review: Appellate review procedures are relatively straightforward and limited. An appeal lies as of right to the Federal Court of Appeal and is typically heard and decided within two years from the date of the trial decision. Leave is required to appear before the Supreme Court of Canada, and only granted in cases of national importance. 7. Court assisted mediation: As part of case management, the Federal Court offers formal mediation services, at no cost, and proactively explores ways of resolving the disputes that come before it. 8. Principled damages and disgorgement of profits: Damages are based on general tort principles. Alternatively, statutory damages are also available for copyright infringement. In patent cases, damages are assessed based on the patentee’s lost profits (including on convoyed sales) and a reasonable royalty on sales the patentee would not have made. Usually a plaintiff also has the option of seeking disgorgement of an infringer’s profits instead of damages. The profits remedy can provide significant relief to patent owners with limited market share, and can offer an important strategic advantage of shifting the burden to the infringer to prove its costs of the infringing sales. Bereskin & Parr has extensive experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal in all types of IP disputes. Our clients cover a wide range of industries such as chemical, pharmaceutical, biological, electronics, oil field services, military defence, and consumer products. Our lawyers are widely recognized as leaders in IP litigation, and routinely receive peer rankings and accolades from prominent services such as Benchmark, IAM Patent 1000, Lexpert, and others. We offer flexible and alternative, competitive fee arrangements. Content shared on Bereskin & Parr’s website is for information purposes only. It should not be taken as legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please contact a Bereskin & Parr LLP professional. We will be pleased to help you. Bereskin & Parr LLP | bereskinparr.com.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Special Series on the Federal Dimensions of Reforming the Supreme Court of Canada
    SPECIAL SERIES ON THE FEDERAL DIMENSIONS OF REFORMING THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA The Supreme Court of Canada: A Chronology of Change Jonathan Aiello Institute of Intergovernmental Relations School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University SC Working Paper 2011 21 May 1869 Intent on there being a final court of appeal in Canada following the Bill for creation of a Supreme country’s inception in 1867, John A. Macdonald, along with Court is withdrawn statesmen Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Mackenzie and Edward Blake propose a bill to establish the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the bill is withdrawn due to staunch support for the existing system under which disappointed litigants could appeal the decisions of Canadian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) sitting in London. 18 March 1870 A second attempt at establishing a final court of appeal is again Second bill for creation of a thwarted by traditionalists and Conservative members of Parliament Supreme Court is withdrawn from Quebec, although this time the bill passed first reading in the House. 8 April 1875 The third attempt is successful, thanks largely to the efforts of the Third bill for creation of a same leaders - John A. Macdonald, Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Supreme Court passes Mackenzie and Edward Blake. Governor General Sir O’Grady Haly gives the Supreme Court Act royal assent on September 17th. 30 September 1875 The Honourable William Johnstone Ritchie, Samuel Henry Strong, The first five puisne justices Jean-Thomas Taschereau, Télesphore Fournier, and William are appointed to the Court Alexander Henry are appointed puisne judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Practice and Procedure the Applicable Rules Of
    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE THE APPLICABLE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL COURT: A SHORT PRIMER ON A TRICKY QUESTION Whether at trial or during interlocutory proceedings, litigators need to know the applicable rules of evidence, since there are import- ant variations in provincial evidence law. The largest difference, of course, is between the civil law of QueÂbec and laws of the nine common-law provinces. Yet significant differences exist even between the common law provinces themselves. Admissions made during discovery can be contradicted at trial in Ontario, but not in Saskatchewan.1 Spoliation of evidence requires intentional conduct in British Columbia before remedies will be granted, but not in New Brunswick.2 Evidence obtained through an invasion of privacy is inadmissible in Manitoba, while the other provinces have yet to legislate on this issue.3 1. Marchand (Litigation Guardian of) v. Public General Hospital Society of Chatham (2000), 43 C.P.C. (5th) 65, 51 O.R. (3d) 97, 138 O.A.C. 201 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 72-86, leave to appeal refused [2001] 2 S.C.R. x, 156 O.A.C. 358 (note), 282 N.R. 397 (note) (S.C.C.); Branco v. American Home Assur- ance Co., 2013 SKQB 98, 6 C.C.E.L. (4th) 175, 20 C.C.L.I. (5th) 22 (Sask. Q.B.) at paras. 96-101, additional reasons 2013 SKQB 442, 13 C.C.E.L. (4th) 323, [2014] I.L.R. I-5534, varied on other issues without comment on this point 2015 SKCA 71, 24 C.C.E.L.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Guide: In-Person Hearings at the Federal Court
    COVID-19 Guide: In-person Hearings at the Federal Court OVERVIEW This guide seeks to outline certain administrative measures that are being taken by the Court to ensure the safety of all individuals who participate in an in-person-hearing. It is specifically directed to the physical use of courtrooms. For all measures that are to be taken outside of the courtroom, but within common areas of a Court facility, please refer to the guide prepared by the Courts Administrative Service, entitled Resuming In-Person Court Operations. You are also invited to view the Court’s guides for virtual hearings. Additional restrictions may apply depending on the evolving guidance of the local or provincial public health authorities, and in situations where the Court hearing is conducted in a provincial or territorial facility. I. CONTEXT Notwithstanding the reopening of the Court for in-person hearings, the Court will continue to schedule all applications for judicial review as well as all general sittings to be heard by video conference (via Zoom), or exceptionally by teleconference. Subject to evolving developments, parties to these and other types of proceedings are free to request an in-person hearing1. In some instances, a “hybrid” hearing, where the judge and one or more counsel or parties are in the hearing room, while other counsel, parties and/or witnesses participate via Zoom, may be considered. The measures described herein constitute guiding principles that can be modified by the presiding Judge or Prothonotary. Any requests to modify these measures should be made as soon as possible prior to the hearing, and can be made by contacting the Registry.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Admiralty Court in the Twentieth Century
    Canada's Admiralty Court in the Twentieth Century Arthur J. Stone* The author outlines the debate surrounding the L'auteur traite du dabat ayant entour6 ]a creation creation of Canada's admiralty court. This debate was d'une Cour d'amiraut6 an Canada. Ce dtbat 6tait ali- fuelled by the desire for autonomy from England and ment6 par ]a volont6 d'une plus grande autonomie vis- the disagreement amongst Canadian politicians re- A-vis l'Angleterre, de meme que par le d~saccord entre garding which court was best suited to exercise admi- les politiciens canadiens quant A la cour la plus appro- ralty jurisdiction. In 1891, more than thirty years after pride pour avoir juridiction en mati~re de droit mari- this debate began, the Exchequer Court of Canada, a time. En 1891, apris plus de trente ans de dtbats, fut national admiralty court, was declared, replacing the crede la Cour de l'&chiquier du Canada, une cour unpopular British vice-admiralty courts. The jurisdic- d'amirantd nationale qui remplaga les impopulaires 2002 CanLIIDocs 40 tion of this court was generally consistent with the ex- cours britanniques de vice-amiraut6. La juridiction de isting English admiralty jurisdiction; it was not until cette cour 6tait gdndralement en accord avec la juridic- 1931 that Canada was able to decide the jurisdiction of tion des cours d'amirautd britanniques; il faflut attendre its own court. Since then, this jurisdiction has been en- 1931 pour que le Canada soit capable de d6cider de ]a larged by federal legislative measures, most notably the juridiction de ses propres tribunaux.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Insolvency Maritime
    The Confluence of Insolvency and Maritime Law in Canada: Navigating Troubled Waters By Kieran E. Siddall, Shelley Chapelski & Jason Kostyniuk Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP Vancouver, Canada When claims arise against an insolvent shipowner, the resulting confluence of insolvency law and maritime law and their respective procedures can be tricky to navigate. This article provides a basic overview of the two regimes in Canada, and briefly reviews some Canadian jurisprudence addressing the jurisdictional conflict that can arise between the Federal Court of Canada exercising its admiralty jurisdiction in rem, and the jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts over insolvency matters (a) Insolvency Law in Canada Insolvency law in Canada is set out primarily in two federal statutes, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”)1 and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).2 Jurisdiction in insolvency matters is given to the superior courts of the provinces.3 Like the U.S., among other jurisdictions, insolvency law in Canada differentiates between a stay of proceedings in liquidations, where the race among creditors is stopped to permit an orderly distribution of the company’s assets among creditors, and restructurings, in which the purpose of the stay is to permit the financially distressed company to survive as a going concern and avoid liquidating its assets. Liquidations are generally administered pursuant to the bankruptcy provisions of the BIA. Upon bankruptcy, there is an automatic stay of proceedings against the bankrupt. All of the assets of the bankrupt vest in a trustee in bankruptcy who is responsible for running a claims process and for realizing upon the bankrupt’s assets for distribution to creditors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Canlii Primer
    The CanLII Primer Legal Research Principles and CanLII Navigation for Self-Represented Litigants The National Self-Represented Litigants Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction What is CanLll? Part One The Canadian Legal System 1.1 The Structure of the Canadian Courts, Boards and Tribunals 1.1.1 The Canadian Court System 1.1.2 Administrative Tribunals 1.2 The System of Precedent 1.2.1 What is “Precedent”? 1.2.2 What is “Binding” Case Law? 1.2.3 What is “Persuasive” Case Law? 1.3 Legislation Part Two Legal Research using CanLII 2.1 Getting Started 2.1.1 Maneuvering the Search Engine 2.1.2 Finding your way Around Case Law Reports in CanLll 2.1.2.1 The Legal Citation 2.1.2.2 The Headnote 2.1.2.3 The Decision 2.1.2.4 The Presiding Judge 2.1.3 Finding your way Around Legislation in CanLll 2.2 Generating Search Terms in CanLll 2.2.1 Using Legal Terms for your Search 2.2.2 Using Cases and Legislation to Generate Search Terms 2.3 Searching by Jurisdiction, Case Names, and Legislation 2.3.1 How to Search by Jurisdiction 2.3.2 How to Search by Case Name 2.3.3 How to Search by Legislation 2.4 Do I search Cases First, Legislation First, Relevance First, or Court Level First? 2.4.1 Begin with Legislation 2.4.1 Move on to Cases 2.4.3 Presentation of Case Law Results In Conclusion Appendix A: Provincial Court Structures Appendix B: Federal Court Structure Glossary of Terms 3 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 CanLII Entry Page Figure 2 CanLII Basic Search Page Figure 3 Outline of Canada’s Court System Figure 4 Binding Court Decisions Figure 5 CanLII Basic Search
    [Show full text]
  • Notes for Brief Remarks on the 50Th Anniversary of the Federal Court
    Notes for brief remarks on the 50th Anniversary of the Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton Special “Virtual” Sitting of the Court June 1, 2021 (Speech delivered in French and English) The transformation of the Exchequer Court into what was to become the Federal Court began in earnest immediately following the general election in 1968. An important goal of the newly elected government was the creation of a “just society.” The Federal Court was considered as having an essential role in carrying out that vision. In short, the government wanted to recalibrate the balance between the average citizen and the state. To this end, it wanted to provide individuals with additional “recourse against bigness, remoteness, alienation [and] distance from the decision making power.” Three other critical objectives were identified by the Justice Minister of the day, the Honourable John Turner. These were: First, achieving greater consistency in judicial review of decisions of federal administrative tribunals across the country. This was to be achieved having by a single, itinerant, court to replace courts across the country that had been taking different approaches to important issues. Second, providing members of the public with a “one stop shop” in which to pursue and enforce claims involving matters having a national or interprovincial dimension. Third, rendering justice from coast to coast in both official languages, with judges trained in both the civil law system and the common law system. These intellectual underpinnings of the Court remain as relevant and strong today as they were half a century ago. Among other things, this is reflected in the continued growth of the Court’s workload in the areas of administrative law, intellectual property law, national security law, aboriginal law, constitutional law and actions against the federal government – especially class proceedings, of which the Court now has over 80.
    [Show full text]
  • The Continuing Evolution of Maritime Law Jurisdiction in Canada
    The Continuing Evolution of Maritime Law Jurisdiction in Canada Aldo Chircop* Introduction Like several other contributors to this book, the author was a student of Pro- fessor Edgar Gold in the 1980s and eventually became a close working col- league. He worked with Professor Gold on activities in support of the World Maritime University in Sweden and co-authored with him and Professor Hugh Kindred the leading textbook on Canadian maritime law.1 During this period Canadian maritime law practitioners, scholars and students had to grapple with a long period of uncertainty in maritime law jurisdiction in this country. The full extent of the Federal Court of Canada’s (Federal Court) jurisdiction in maritime law was at issue. The absence of specific federal statu- tes on particular maritime subjects raised questions as to whether the Federal Court was able to administer ‘laws of Canada’ in a maritime case. There was no complete understanding of the full scope of Canadian maritime law and in turn this blurred understanding of the full scope of maritime jurisdiction. The methodology for determining how particular causes of action could be characterized as maritime so as to fall under navigation and shipping was unclear. In this regard, it was also unclear whether maritime law could be applied to torts that occurred on land. The extent, if at all, to which provin- cial statutes could be applied to dispose of maritime claims was unclear. The jurisdiction that could be exercised by provincial superior and inferior courts was also questioned. Maritime or admiralty jurisdiction concerns the judicial power to admin- ister laws related to navigation and shipping.
    [Show full text]
  • Abbreviations / Abr ´Eviations
    ABBREVIATIONS / ABREVIATIONS´ The following is a list of abbreviations used in this publication. It includes unions, courts, boards, tribunals, law reports and general abbreviations requiring explanation. Unless the plural is set out in the list, it is formed by adding ‘s’ to the abbreviation given. Voici une liste des abr´eviations etant´ utilis´ees dans cette publication. Cette liste comporte des abr´eviations des syndicats, des tribunaux judiciaires et administratifs, des commis- sions, des recueils de jurisprudence ainsi que des abr´eviations d’ordre plus g´en´eral devant etreˆ expliqu´ees. En l’absence d’indications contraires, le pluriel de ces abr´eviations est constitu´ee par l’ajout d’un ‘s’ a` l’abr´eviation. [ ] A Atlantic Reporter ABMGB Alberta Municipal Government Board A. • Abbott A.B.P.P.U.M. / ABPPUM Association des bib- • Adolphus & Ellis, Queen’s Bench lioth´ecaires et des professeurs de l’Universit´e de Moncton • Alberta ABSRB Alberta Surface Rights Board • American [ ] A.C. Law Reports, Appeal Cases • American and English Annotated Cases A.C. • Arrˆet´e en conseil • Louisiana Annuals • Assembl´ee consultative (U.N.) A.A.C.M. / AACM Association des avocats de la Couronne du Manitoba A.C.A.C. / ACAC Air Crew Association Canada A.A.F.C. / AAFC Association des artisans du film A.C.A.C. No. Cour dappel de la Cour Martiale Du canadien Canada A.A.H.P. / AAHP Association of Allied Health Pro- A.C.C.T.A. / ACCTA Association canadienne du fessionals: Newfoundland and Labrador contrˆole du trafic a´erien A.A.H.P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Documents on Federal Court Website
    Access to Documents on Federal Court Website CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION FEDERAL COURTS BENCH AND BAR LIAISON COMMITTEE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ENTERTAINMENT, MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS, IMMIGRATION LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PRIVACY AND ACCESS LAW SECTIONS December 2019 66 Slater St., Suite 1200, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1P 5H1 tel/tél. 613 237-2925 • tf/sans frais 1-800 267-8860 • fax/téléc. 613 237-0185 • cba.org • [email protected] PREFACE The Canadian Bar Association is a national association representing 36,000 jurists, including lawyers, notaries, law teachers and students across Canada. The Association's primary objectives include improvement in the law and in the administration of justice. This submission was prepared by the Federal Courts Bench and Bar Liaison Committee and the CBA Administrative Law, Energy, Environment and Natural Resources, Entertainment, Media and Communications, Immigration Law, Intellectual Property, and Privacy and Access Law Sections with assistance from the Advocacy Department at the CBA office. The submission has been reviewed by the Law Reform Subcommittee and approved as a public statement of the CBA Administrative Law, Energy, Environment and Natural Resources, Entertainment, Media and Communications, Immigration Law, Intellectual Property, and Privacy and Access Law Sections. Copyright © 2019 Canadian Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS Access to Documents on Federal Court Website I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1 II. DISCUSSION .................................................................... 1 III. AUSTRALIAN MODEL ..................................................... 2 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 4 1. Require Creation of Online Account and Fees ................ 4 2. Open Online Access Subject to Limited Exceptions ........ 5 3. Protecting Sensitive Personal Information: Responsibilities of Counsel and the Court ....................... 5 4. Special Considerations in the Immigration Context ........
    [Show full text]
  • Submissions of the Prothonotaries of the Federal Court to the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
    IN THE MATTER OF THE 6TH QUADRENNIAL COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS SUBMISSIONS OF THE PROTHONOTARIES OF THE FEDERAL COURT TO THE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMISSION March 29, 2021 Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP 155 Wellington Street West 35th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3H1 Andrew K. Lokan Tel.: 416.646.4324 Fax: 416.646.4301 Email: [email protected] Lawyers for the Prothonotaries of the Federal Court TO: Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP 1 Place Ville Marie, Suite 2500 Montréal, QC H3B 1R1 Pierre Beinvenu Tel.: 514.847.4452 Email: [email protected] Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP 45 O’Connor Street, Suite 1500 Ottawa, ON K1P 1A4 Jean-Simon Schoenholz Tel.: 613.780.1537 Email: [email protected] NOVAlex 1195 Wellington Street, Suite 301 Montreal, QC H3C 1W1 Azim Hussein Tel.: 514.903.0835 ext. 132 Email: [email protected] Lawyers for the Superior Court Judges Association and the Canadian Judicial Council AND TO: Justice Canada Civil Litigation Section, Suite 500 50 O'Connor Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 Chris Rupar Tel.: 613.670.6290 Email: [email protected] Kirk Shannon Tel.: 613.670.6270 Email: [email protected] Samar Mussalman Email: [email protected] INTRODUCTION 1. Prothonotaries are judges in all but name for a broad range of purposes. They are full judicial officers who hold office during good behaviour until age 75, have the same immunity from liability as a judge of the Federal Court, and exercise many of the same powers and functions as a judge of that court (FC Judge).
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Admiralty Court in the Twentieth Century
    Canada's Admiralty Court in the Twentieth Century Arthur J. Stone* The author outlines the debate surrounding the L'auteur traite du dabat ayant entour6 ]a creation creation of Canada's admiralty court. This debate was d'une Cour d'amiraut6 an Canada. Ce dtbat 6tait ali- fuelled by the desire for autonomy from England and ment6 par ]a volont6 d'une plus grande autonomie vis- the disagreement amongst Canadian politicians re- A-vis l'Angleterre, de meme que par le d~saccord entre garding which court was best suited to exercise admi- les politiciens canadiens quant A la cour la plus appro- ralty jurisdiction. In 1891, more than thirty years after pride pour avoir juridiction en mati~re de droit mari- this debate began, the Exchequer Court of Canada, a time. En 1891, apris plus de trente ans de dtbats, fut national admiralty court, was declared, replacing the crede la Cour de l'&chiquier du Canada, une cour unpopular British vice-admiralty courts. The jurisdic- d'amirantd nationale qui remplaga les impopulaires tion of this court was generally consistent with the ex- cours britanniques de vice-amiraut6. La juridiction de isting English admiralty jurisdiction; it was not until cette cour 6tait gdndralement en accord avec la juridic- 1931 that Canada was able to decide the jurisdiction of tion des cours d'amirautd britanniques; il faflut attendre its own court. Since then, this jurisdiction has been en- 1931 pour que le Canada soit capable de d6cider de ]a larged by federal legislative measures, most notably the juridiction de ses propres tribunaux.
    [Show full text]