Intellectual property law cases tackled in federal courts this week
This week, the Federal Court of Appeal dealt with appeals brought by Indian bands and a man previously declared a vexatious litigant. On the other hand, the Federal Court handled cases relating to disability pensions, trademarks, copyrights, and patented medicines.
Federal Court of Appeal
On Tuesday, the court continued to hear the related appeals in Little Black Bear First Nation v. Kawacatoose First Nation et al, A-303-19 and Star Blanket First Nation v. Specific Claims Tribunal et al, A-328-19.
Little Black Bear First Nation and Star Blanket First Nation filed judicial review applications seeking to quash or to set aside a decision of the Specific Claims Tribunal. They asked the court to declare that they had valid claims under the Specific Claims Act, 2008.
The applicants argued that Canada breached fiduciary obligations when it took Last Mountain Lake Indian Reserve 80A, a fishing station reserve, without consent from Indian bands with an interest in it. Canada allegedly did not comply with the applicable treaty and with the surrender provisions of the Indian Act, 1985.
Also on Tuesday, the court heard John Turmel v. His Majesty the King, A-265-22. The appeal challenged the Federal Court’s decision declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant.
The Federal Court held that the appellant expressed contempt for the judiciary, instituted numerous meritless and repetitive proceedings, developed litigation kits with templates for court documents, and recruited others to “flood the courts” with these documents despite lacking any qualifications or apparent ability to practise law.
On Wednesday, the court heard the related appeals in His Majesty the King v. Adboss, Ltd. et al, A-236-22; His Majesty the King v. Liberty Street Management Inc., A-237-22; and His Majesty the King v. Bluecove Management Ltd., A-238-22. The Crown challenged the Tax Court of Canada’s order striking a portion of its reply to the notice of appeal.
The Crown alleged that the motion judge incorrectly identified and applied the legal test for striking pleadings by determining that the location of a company’s central management and control were mixed factual and legal matters and thus could not be included as an assumption of fact by the Minister of National Revenue under s. 49(1)(d) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules.
On Thursday, the court heard Eugene Kelly Tippett v. His Majesty the King, A-358-21. The underlying class action alleged sexual abuse, assault, or harassment by Canadian Armed Forces members. The appellant disagreed with the Federal Court’s dismissal of a motion to amend the certified class definition and common issues.
Federal Court
On Tuesday, the court heard Khaliq Hussain Anwar v. Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division, T-2064-22. This judicial review application challenged a decision of the Social Security Tribunal’s Appeal Division relating to a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan.
The applicant alleged that the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service subjected him to electronic surveillance, tracking, aggression, harassment, and torture. He claimed that he was entitled to payments for severe and prolonged physical and mental impairments.
On Tuesday, the court heard Group III International Ltd. et al v. Travelway Group International Inc., T-1380-13. The appellants previously took this case to the Federal Court of Appeal. They questioned the Federal Court’s judgment dismissing their damages claim and ordering the expungement of the respondent’s registered trademarks.
The Federal Court should have decided that, because the infringing marks were always invalid and never registrable, the appellants were entitled to financial compensation from the time the respondent started using these marks, the appellants argued. The respondent could not rely on s. 19 of the Trademarks Act, 1985, the appellants added.
In December 2020, in Group III International Ltd. v. Travelway Group International Ltd., 2020 FCA 210, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
Also on Tuesday, the court heard Bell Canada et al v. WatchNSaveNow Inc. et al, T-759-16. In February 2022, in Bell Canada v. Nie, 2022 CanLII 7552 (FC), the Federal Court granted a motion for default judgment filed by the plaintiffs.
The defendants infringed the plaintiffs’ copyright and induced users of pre-loaded set-top boxes to initiate acts of infringement of the copyright, the Federal Court said. The defendants made the plaintiffs’ works available in a way that allowed each user to access such works by telecommunication from a chosen place and time, the Federal Court added.
On Wednesday, the court heard Allergan, Inc. et al v. Juno Pharmaceuticals Corp., T-1994-21. This was a proceeding under s. 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant infringed on their patent by making, constructing, using, or selling its 0.01 w/v bimatoprost solution for ophthalmic administration.
In June, in Allergan, Inc. v. Juno Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2023 CanLII 56759 (FC), the Federal Court dismissed a motion filed by the plaintiff to compel answers to certain questions.
