Canadian Technology & IP Law : Canadian Technology Lawyers & Attorneys : Stikeman Elliott Law Firm : IP Law in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa & Vancouver

The BBC recently reported that an IT professional is facing a lengthy jail sentence after pleading guilty to stealing millions of dollars worth of online currency. The defendant was apparently able to hack into the system of popular online gaming firm Zynga, and take about $12 million worth of poker chips. The case is notable in that the court appears to have recognized the value, as property, of virtual currency. Undoubtedly, this will be a developing area of law as more companies begin transacting in similar forms of virtual currency.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

In a recent decision in Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 2010 FC 1264, the Federal Court denied Apotex damages resulting from the delay it experienced in bringing its generic version of the drug lovastatin to market as a result of Merck’s prohibition application.  This is an important decision which resolves an action commenced nearly 10 years ago and will provide other pharmaceutical companies involved in similarly long-lasting litigation with insight into the scope of section 8 in the 1993 version of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (NOC Regulations).

Both current and past versions of section 8 of the NOC Regulations purport to permit a company whose product has been kept off of the market due to a prohibition application to recover damages from the applicant for any loss resulting from the delay. Although Apotex’s statement of claim was filed in 2001, subsequent to significant amendments in 1998, the Court determined that the 1993 version of the NOC Regulations would apply. Section 8 was amended again in 2006 and 2010 and, as a result, will remain ripe for further litigation as to its interpretation. In any future disputes, it will be useful to note the preference demonstrated by the Court in this case for textual interpretations of the NOC Regulations’ technical provisions.

This case was heard contemporaneously with another case which we have discussed here

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

David Elder

In the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of the eligibility of foreign-backed telecommunications carriers to operate in Canada, the Federal Court of Canada has quashed a decision of the federal cabinet that found that Globalive Wireless Management Corp. (Globalive) met Canadian ownership requirements under the Telecommunications Act. 

The Court’s decision in the case of Public Mobile v. Attorney General of Canada et al  threatens the ability of a new wireless entrant to operate in Canada, effectively lowers the amount of foreign investment that is acceptable under Canadian ownership rules for telecom carriers and offers new guidance respecting the scope of the federal cabinet to overturn the decision of an administrative tribunal.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

In Merck & Co. Inc. v. Apotex Inc., the Federal Court found Apotex to have infringed Merck’s Canadian Patent No. 1,161,380 (‘380 Patent), a product-by-process patent for the medicine lovastatin.

In arriving at its decision, the Court addressed key questions regarding standing, infringement and patent validity. The decision provides an interesting example of a plaintiff’s successful use of DNA and circumstantial evidence in establishing two separate sources of infringement. In addition, readers should take note of the Court’s finding that a pre-existing process will invalidate a product-by-process patent only where it necessarily produces the relevant product.  

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print