People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Emily P. Kettel

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner, Trademark Agent

Vincent M. de Grandpré

IP Lawyer | Life Sciences & Tech

Partner

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

Competition & Antitrust Litigation Lawyer

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

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

The Québec Court of Appeal recently released a decision in Micron Technology Inc. c Hazan, 2020 QCCA 1104, that could have important implications for defendants seeking to have proposed class proceedings in Québec courts stayed in favour of proceedings in other Canadian jurisdictions.

Stay Here or There Recent Direction from the Quebec Court of Appeal on Stays

Stay Here or There? Recent Direction from the Québec Court of Appeal on Stays in Proposed Parallel Class Proceedings

Ruth E. Promislow

Privacy, Cybersecurity & AI Lawyer

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

On June 4th, 2026, the federal government released Canada&rsquo;s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy: AI for All (the Strategy). The Strategy aims to ensure that artificial intelligence serves Canadians, strengthens businesses and communities and enhances Canada&rsquo;s control over its technological future through six key pillars.

Canadas AI for All Strategy Building Trust Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Canada’s AI for All Strategy: Building Trust, Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice&rsquo;s decision in Nivora Group LLC v. Ping et al. clarifies the strict limits on Norwich orders in the context of crypto asset disputes. The Court dismissed a motion seeking third-party disclosure from cryptocurrency exchanges, reaffirming that Norwich relief is an extraordinary remedy available only where it is truly necessary and cannot be used to replace ordinary discovery. Even in cases involving alleged asset tracing, applicants must demonstrate that the third party is the only practicable source of the information and that the interests of justice favour disclosure.

Court Reaffirms Limits on Norwich Orders in Crypto Asset Disputes

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Chanderpaul v. Caesars Convention Centre Ltd. clarifies when courts may pierce the corporate veil and hold shareholders personally liable for a corporation's wrongful conduct. While reaffirming the high threshold for veil-piercing claims, the decision provides important guidance on the types of conduct that may justify this exceptional remedy.

Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Test for Piercing the Corporate Veil

Amanda C. McLachlan

Corporate & Regulatory Lawyer | Disputes, Investigations & Compliance

In Friel v. HUB International Limited, 2026 ONCA 313, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of a forum selection clause designating the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for resolving a dispute between a former employee in Ontario and his employer's Delaware-based parent entities over the exercise of vested share options. The decision provides important guidance for employers that structure equity incentive arrangements through related entities and reinforces the significance of clear contractual language delineating employment relationships from equity participation rights.

When Agreements Collide The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v HUB

When Agreements Collide — The Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Forum Selection Provision in Friel v. HUB

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Andrew Young

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

The June 2026 issue of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes provides insight into recent tax litigation developments, including the Tax Court's decision in 941624 Alberta Ltd. v. The King on the large corporation objection rules, updates from the Taxpayers' Ombudsperson, and summaries of recent tax decisions and appeal activity.

Intellectual Property Institute of Canada - CLE on Trademarks Opposition Board Practices

From the Same Authors