People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Manage Cookies

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Dominique T. Hussey

Chief Executive Officer and Intellectual Property Litigator, Pharma/Biotech and Trademark Lawyer

Chief Executive Officer

Vincent M. de Grandpré

IP Lawyer | Life Sciences & Tech

Partner

Emily P. Kettel

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner, Trademark Agent

In Pharmascience v. Janssen Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that methods of medical treatment remain unpatentable subject matter under the Patent Act because they are directed to the professional skill and judgment of healthcare practitioners. At the same time, the Court upheld the patentability of the dosing regimen claims at issue, clarifying that not all therapeutic or treatment-related claims constitute unpatentable methods of medical treatment. The decision provides important guidance on assessing patent eligibility for pharmaceutical and life sciences innovations in Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada Reaffirms that  Methods of Medical Treatment are Unpatentable

Supreme Court of Canada Confirms That Medical Professional Skill and Judgment Are Excluded From the Patent Bargain

Cross-border collaborations are central to the life sciences industry, but they can also raise complex questions about patent infringement liability in Canada. This update examines the Federal Court&rsquo;s recent decision in Adeia Guides Inc v Videotron Ltd and its implications for companies involved in the development, supply and commercialization of patented products and services. The authors explore how Canadian law approaches common design infringement, experimental use exemptions and the potential liability of foreign partners whose activities contribute to products ultimately sold in Canada.

Life Sciences Collaborations and the Risk of Joint Patent Infringement

Emrys Davis

 Partner and Class Actions National Practice Group Leader

Christina Skinner

Competition and Antitrust Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

On December 17, 2024, the Competition Tribunal (the Tribunal) issued reasons for its decision to dismiss an application for leave to bring a private abuse of dominance action against a major pharmaceutical manufacturer. JAMP had applied for leave to bring a claim against Janssen Inc. alleging abuse of dominance under section 79 of the Competition Act (the Act) in relation to STELARA, Janssen’s drug containing the active ingredient ustekinumab. The Tribunal dismissed JAMP’s application. Among other things, its decision confirms that the Tribunal will carefully probe the parties’ evidence in performing its important screening role on leave applications.

Competition Tribunal Issues First of its Kind Decision in Private Abuse of Dominance Case

Competition Tribunal Issues First-of-Its-Kind Decision in Private Abuse of Dominance Case Against Major Pharma Manufacturer

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

Tech & Data, National Practice Group Leader 

Kees de Ridder

Technology, IP & Privacy Lawyer | Patents, Licensing & Cyber

Partner, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

On December 12, 2024, the Canadian Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) announced plans to initiate a <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/en/trademarks-opposition-board/pilot-project-registrar-initiated-section-45-expungement-proceeding" target="_blank">pilot project</a> in January 2025 whereby the Registrar of Trademarks will proactively issue a limited number of section 45 notices against existing trademark registrations with the primary intent to assess how many of these trademarks are no longer in use.

Clearing the Deadwood Inactive Trademarks at Risk as Section 45 Pilot Project Announced

Clearing the Deadwood: Inactive Trademarks at Risk as Section 45 Pilot Project Announced

Ashley M. White

Corporate & Commercial Transactions Lawyer | Power & Energy

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Nathan Murray

Energy Regulatory, Environmental & Administrative Lawyer

Canada has amended the Physical Activities Regulations to remove certain intraprovincial energy projects and Canada Energy Regulator-regulated facilities from the federal Impact Assessment Act Project List. The changes are intended to reduce regulatory duplication, timelines and costs while providing greater certainty for proponents, while other federal environmental and emissions requirements remain applicable.

Government of Canada Reduces the Scope of the Project List under the Impact Assessment

Government of Canada Reduces the Scope of the Project List under the Impact Assessment Act

Jessica Kennedy

Regulatory Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Jennifer (Jenn) K. Choi

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

On July 15, 2026, British Columbia and Simpcw First Nation entered into a consent-based decision-making agreement under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) for the environmental assessment of the Yellowhead Copper Project. The Agreement requires Simpcw consent for the project to proceed and establishes a framework for parallel provincial and Indigenous environmental assessments. Its potential application to future mining projects in Simpcw&rsquo;s traditional territory highlights the evolving role of Indigenous consent in major resource development projects in British Columbia.

BC Signs DRIPA Consent Agreement Requiring Simpcw Consent for Yellowhead Copper Project

BC Signs DRIPA Agreement Requiring Simpcw Consent for Yellowhead Copper Project

Katherine Booth

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

The BC Court of Appeal in Cleaver v. The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited upheld the refusal to certify a privacy class action, finding no basis in fact for the claim&rsquo;s central allegation. The decision reinforces the courts&rsquo; gatekeeping role at certification and the importance of evidentiary support for the core allegations underlying a proposed class proceeding.

BC Court of Appeal No basis in fact no class action

BC Court of Appeal: No Basis in Fact = No Class Action 

Michael C. Smith

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

George W. H. Reid

International Trade, Investment and Public Procurement Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Government of Canada has published a new Notice concerning the rules and procedures governing the administration of the quota for imports of electric vehicles from the People's Republic of China for the second period of Quota Year 1 (September 1, 2026 to February 28, 2027). The Notice, issued by Global Affairs Canada under the Export and Import Permits Act, confirms that the second allocation period will continue to operate similar to the first allocation period.&nbsp;

Notice Concerning the Quota for Imports of Chinese Electric Vehicles

Second Allocation Period Opens September 1, 2026

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Kate Kim

Andrew Young

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Issue 43 of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes highlights recent developments in Canadian tax litigation and dispute resolution. This edition examines the limits of the Minister's ability to advance alternative assessment arguments, clarifies who may deduct legal costs incurred in tax disputes, and explores the role of price adjustment clauses in estate freeze transactions

Evidentiary, Procedural and Case Management Issues

From the Same Authors