Decision to not Remove Solicitors as Counsel for the Defendants Upheld on Appeal (Intellectual Property Weekly Abstracts - Week of February 27, 2017)

Decision to not Remove Solicitors as Counsel for the Defendants Upheld on Appeal

Sike v. Encana Corporation, 2017 FCA 37 The Federal Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Federal Court dismissing an appeal from the Prothonotary's order wherein he refused to remove counsel as solicitors of record for the Defendants. In the underlying motion, the Plaintiffs had argued that when they were seeking counsel for this proceeding they had imparted confidential information to the solicitors who are now counsel to the Defence (Prothonotary's decision: 2016 FC 110, our summary here; Federal Court's decision: 2016 FC 671, our summary here). The Court of Appeal reviewed the Prothonotary's decision and found that the conclusion that no information relevant to the matter in issue had been conveyed was open to the Prothonotary on the evidence before him. Therefore, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Federal Court judge had no reason to intervene, and that the appeal should accordingly be dismissed.

Federal Court Orders Additional Amount of $100,000.00 as Security for the Defendant's Costs

Regents of the University of California v. I-MED Pharma Inc., 2016 FC 975

Following TearLab's unsuccessful motions for interim and interlocutory injunctions, the Federal Court ordered that TearLab deposit an additional amount of $100,000.00 as security for the Defendant's costs. The Court found that the Defendant had established that there was a significant gap between the security of $100,000.00 posted and the actual costs of $141,101.00 awarded in its favour following the unsuccessful interim and interlocutory injunction motions. The Court was also not satisfied that TearLab, an ordinarily resident outside of Canada, had any assets of value in Canada. Additionally, there was no suggestion that TearLab was impecunious or that an order for increased security for costs would create a financial burden rendering it impossible to carry on the action. The Court concluded that an additional amount of $100,000.00 should be posted by TearLab as security for the Defendant's costs. This amount took into account the cost awards already made in favour and against each party to date and the steps that remain to be taken by the parties in order to complete examinations for discovery.

Judicial Review of Commissioner's Decision Refusing to Amend Priority Date Dismissed

Bayer Cropscience LP v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 178

The Federal Court dismissed Bayer's application for...