Focus On
NEW In-House Counsel | Insurance | Intellectual Property | Immigration | Natural Resources | Real Estate | Tax

Intellectual Property

Latest

Thursday, March 23, 2017 @ 10:35 AM

Dentons expands eastern Europe reach with new Tbilisi office

Global law firm Dentons is expanding its presence in Central and Eastern Europe by opening an office in Tbilisi, Georgia. ... [read more]

Wednesday, March 22, 2017 @ 7:13 PM

Budget 2017 bad news for lawyers, other professionals Kim Moody

Federal Budget 2017 is a mixed offering to justice system players, with Ottawa abruptly ending a tax advantage for lawyers, while announcing new funding for 28 additional judicial posts, as well as minor increases to support family justice, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) and the Federal Courts. ... [read more]

Friday, March 17, 2017 @ 1:21 PM

Lawyer/scientist Anand joins Gilbert's LLP

Nisha Anand has joined Gilbert’s LLP as a partner. ... [read more]

Friday, March 17, 2017 @ 8:54 AM

Top 10 risk management tips for charities, not-for-profits

Charities and not-for-profits (NFPs) face increasing challenges in delivering their services to their members and the public, in part because of a more litigious reality and complicated regulatory environment. As such, charities and NFPs need to be familiar with an array of legal requirements that they need to comply with. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 8:00 PM

Trade-marks - Infringement - Confusion and deception - Remedies - Damages - Procedure - Costs - Assessment or fixing of costs - On appeal

Appeal by the defendant, Lam, from an award of damages and costs in favour of the plaintiffs, the Chanel companies. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants sold counterfeit Chanel products. In 2015, the Federal Court found the defendants liable for infringement of the plaintiffs’ trade-marks and selling goods in a manner likely to cause confusion. The plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages of $64,000, punitive and exemplary damages of $250,000, and costs totaling $66,000. The defendants were liable for the award on a joint and several basis. In 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the trial judge for clarification of whether the defendant was responsible for three or four instances of dealing in counterfeit goods. Upon redetermination, the trial judge clarified that the defendant was liable for four instances of counterfeiting and reaffirmed the initial decision’s damages and costs awards. The defendant appealed the damages and costs awards. The plaintiffs appealed the costs award on the basis it failed to sufficiently reflect their settlement offer made prior to the redetermination hearing. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 8:00 PM

Intellectual Property Law - Patents - Procedure - Costs - Assessment or fixing of costs

Appeal by Nova Chemicals Corporation (Nova) from a costs award in favour of the Dow Chemical companies (Dow). Dow successfully sued Nova for patent infringement and successfully defended the judgment on appeal. The Federal Court awarded Dow lump-sum costs of $2.9 million for legal fees, plus disbursements of $3.6 million. The Court found that allowable legal fees under Column V of Tariff B would have awarded 11 per cent of Dow’s incurred costs, resulting in an inadequate award. The Court characterized the 33 days of discovery and 32 days of trial as an extremely complex patent case involving extensive expert testimony, thereby justifying an increased costs award. The Court awarded lump-sum costs to avoid additional delay and expense associated with an assessment of costs. The Court concluded that an award of approximately three times what was available under the Tariff was reasonable. The Court found that Dow’s bill of costs and the attached schedules permitted determination of the reasonableness of the award and related disbursements. Nova appealed. ... [read more]

Wednesday, March 15, 2017 @ 9:02 AM

PATENTS - Procedure - Costs - Assessment or fixing of costs

Appeal by Nova Chemicals Corporation (Nova) from a costs award in favour of the Dow Chemical companies (Dow). Dow successfully sued Nova for patent infringement and successfully defended the judgment on appeal. The Federal Court awarded Dow lump-sum costs of $2.9 million for legal fees, plus disbursements of $3.6 million. The Court found that allowable legal fees under Column V of Tariff B would have awarded 11 per cent of Dow's incurred costs, resulting in an inadequate award. The Court characterized the 33 days of discovery and 32 days of trial as an extremely complex patent case involving extensive expert testimony, thereby justifying an increased costs award. The Court awarded lump-sum costs to avoid additional delay and expense associated with an assessment of costs. The Court concluded that an award of approximately three times what was available under the Tariff was reasonable. The Court found that Dow's bill of costs and the attached schedules permitted determination of the reasonableness of the award and related disbursements. Nova appealed. ... [read more]

Wednesday, March 15, 2017 @ 9:01 AM

TRADE-MARKS - Infringement - Confusion and deception - Remedies - Damages - Procedure - Costs - Assessment or fixing of costs - On appeal

Appeal by the defendant, Lam, from an award of damages and costs in favour of the plaintiffs, the Chanel companies. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants sold counterfeit Chanel products. In 2015, the Federal Court found the defendants liable for infringement of the plaintiffs' trade-marks and selling goods in a manner likely to cause confusion. The plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages of $64,000, punitive and exemplary damages of $250,000, and costs totaling $66,000. The defendants were liable for the award on a joint and several basis. In 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the trial judge for clarification of whether the defendant was responsible for three or four instances of dealing in counterfeit goods. Upon redetermination, the trial judge clarified that the defendant was liable for four instances of counterfeiting and reaffirmed the initial decision's damages and costs awards. The defendant appealed the damages and costs awards. The plaintiffs appealed the costs award on the basis it failed to sufficiently reflect their settlement offer made prior to the redetermination hearing. ... [read more]

Friday, March 10, 2017 @ 12:45 PM

Fasken Martineau partners with OneEleven

International business law and litigation firm Fasken Martineau announced a multi-year sponsorship with OneEleven, a Toronto-based technology accelerator and innovation hub dedicated to supporting Canada’s most promising scaleups.  ... [read more]

Friday, March 10, 2017 @ 8:51 AM

Drawing the fine line between zealous advocacy and incivility

Like American politics, the legal profession has suffered a decline in civility. ... [read more]