The following intellectual property cases are active before the Supreme Court of Canada. This list is automatically generated daily. Please contact me if you notice any errors or inconsistencies.
Return to litigation data.
[Listing generated on December 18, 2024]
Proceedings waiting for rulings
The following intellectual property appeals are awaiting judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada.
| SCC File No. | Status | Style of Cause | Appeal File No. | Excerpt from Appeal Decision |
| 41209 | Leave granted 2024-09-19 | Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc., et al. | A-205-22 | 2024 FCA 23: This is an appeal of a decision 2022 FC 1218 in the context of an action brought pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the PM(NOC) Regulations. … The only ground that remains relevant for the purposes of this appeal is that the claims of the 335 Patent are invalid because they comprise unpatentable subject matter, namely methods of medical treatment. The Federal Court rejected this allegation and found the claims of the 335 Patent valid. … To summarize, whether or not a patent claim to a dosing regimen relates to a method of medical treatment cannot be based exclusively on whether its dosing and schedule is fixed or not. The proper inquiry remains whether use of the invention (i.e., how to use it, not whether to use it) requires the exercise of skill and judgment, and the burden remains on the party challenging the patent. … It follows from the foregoing that I would dismiss the present appeal. |
Application for leave
Applications for leave to appeal have been filed on the following intellectual property related proceedings.
| SCC File No. | Status | Style of Cause | Appeal File No. | Excerpt from Appeal Decision |
| 41323 | Application for leave filed 2024-06-11 | Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd., et al. v. ARC Resources Ltd., et al. | A-210-22 | 2024 FCA 67: This appeal turns on what constitutes “use” of a patented invention for the purposes of proving infringement of a patent under section 42 of the Patent Act. The appellants claim that the respondents “used” their invention and infringed their patent when, in order to enter into commercially valuable transactions, they disclosed to prospective business partners and stakeholders, as a proof of concept, drawings, specifications and cost estimates of a design which, if ever built, would comprise the essential elements of the patent. The novel and expansive reading of “use” proposed by the appellants to support their claim of infringement finds no basis in the language of the Act or the leading precedents that have interpreted it. Its adoption by this Court would undermine the accepted principles underlying Canada’s regime of patent protection, including the patent bargain, and inject uncertainty into a well-settled area of law. For the reasons that follow, I would reject the appellants’ proposed interpretation of section 42 and dismiss the appeal. This is an appeal from … 2022 FC 998. … The question is whether a commercial benefit is realized in the context of a defendant’s commercial activities involving the patented object. |
| 41538 | Application for leave filed 2024-11-13 | Facebook Inc. v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada | A-129-23 | 2024 FCA 140: The proceeding arose from the Commissioner’s investigation into the scraping of Facebook user data by the app “thisisyourdigitallife” (TYDL) and its subsequent selling of the data to Cambridge Analytica for psychographic modeling purposes between November 2013 and December 2015. The Federal Court(2023 FC 533), dismissed the Commissioner’s application, finding that the Commissioner had not shown that Facebook failed to obtain meaningful consent from users for disclosure of their data, nor that Facebook failed to adequately safeguard user data. I would allow the appeal. The Federal Court erred in its analysis of meaningful consent and safeguarding under PIPEDA. I conclude that Facebook breached PIPEDA’s requirement that it obtain meaningful consent from users prior to data disclosure and failed in its obligation to safeguard user data. … Put more simply, if the reasonable person would not have understood what they consented to, no amount of reasonable efforts on the part of the corporation can change that conclusion. Having regard to the purpose of PIPEDA, the consent of the individual, objectively determined, prevails. … These practices, taken together, lead only to the conclusion that Facebook did not adequately inform users of the risks to their data upon signing up to Facebook (risks that materialized in the case of TYDL and Cambridge Analytica). Therefore, meaningful consent was not obtained. As will be discussed below, these same practices and measures—or lack thereof—inform Facebook’s breach of its safeguarding duties. |
Return to top.
Disclaimers:
- It is highly recommended that you consult the primary source for documents provided by this website, such as the Federal Court of Canada or the various patent offices, to ensure that you have an accurate, up to date version of the information you require. I take no responsibilities for errors or out-dated information found on this website.
- Medicinal ingredients are based on automated analysis and should not be relied upon.