Lenczner Slaght recognizes the significance of protecting the intellectual property of our clients in an increasingly complex global market.

Over the years we have developed unparalleled experience in the conduct of complex litigation with business and legal goals in mind.  We bring our extensive experience in the courtroom to proceedings in the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, Ontario Superior Court and Ontario Court of Appeal in matters involving patents, trade-marks, copyright, confidential information, and trade secret and competition law issues.  We also represent clients in disputes relating to misleading advertising, grey-goods, and anti-counterfeit matters.

We appear regularly in court for national and multinational clients from a wide array of industries and sectors including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, nutraceuticals, mining, fashion and design, and recording and broadcasting.

Our reputation for negotiating successful commercial outcomes for our clients in litigation matters extends as well to the resolution of intellectual property disputes.

For further information about how our lawyers can assist you with intellectual property matters, please contact Marguerite Ethier - (416) 865-2979

Intellectual Property Cases
Representative intellectual property matters our lawyers have been involved in:

Wang et al. v. Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. 2007 SKCA 133;  2006 SKCA 97 -   represented the Weinstein Company LLC in Saskatchewan copyright infringement action relating to the sequel rights for “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”.

Petrillo v. Allmax Nutrition Inc. et al. (2006), 54 CPR (4th) 319 (F.C.) - obtained summary judgment in the Federal Court removing corporate officers and employees from trade-mark infringement action.

Sycor Technology Inc. v. Kaier et al. (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 268  (S.C.J.) – motion to determine appropriate parties in breach of confidence action.

A&W Food Services of Canada Inc. v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd., 2005 FC 406 – represented McDonalds in a trademark infringement action involving A&W’s trademark “Chicken Grill” and McDonald’s “Chicken McGrill.”

Apotex Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-term Care), [2004] O.J. No. 1728 (S.C.J.) – judicial review of the Minister’s decision not to list Apo-citalopram as interchangeable with Lundbeck’s citalopram-containing pharmaceutical product and the listing of Genpharm’s Gen-citalopram on Ontario’s Drug Benefit Index.

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 6 C.P.R. (4th) 165 (FCA) – challenge to the validity of the enactment of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations in the context of seeking an order directing the Minister to issue a NOC for Apo-norfloxacin.

Apotex Inc. v. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd. (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 417 (Ont. C.A.) – successful appeal in part from an order striking out Apotex’ statement of claim relating to, among other allegations, Competition Act claims and ultra-generic deals.

Lubrizol Corp. v. Imperial Oil Ltd., (2000), 6 C.P.R. (4th) 417 (FCTD) – motion to set aside a judgment based on allegations of fraud of Lubrizol and an expert witness.

Jolian Investments Ltd. v. Gatien, [2000] O.J. No. 3719 (Ont. S.C.J.) – in the context of a copyright infringement matter, represented the plaintiff seeking costs where the defendants brought a motion for summary judgment which was subsequently abandoned.

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Lubrizol Corp (1999), 86 C.P.R. (3d) 331 (FCTD) – represented Imperial Oil in a application to remove counsel of Lubrizol on the basis that some may be witnesses at trial.

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Lubrizol Corp. (1998), 82 C.P.R. (3d) 440 (FCTD) – represented Imperial Oil to successfully defend against the defendants’ motion for leave to cross-examine a solicitor and vice-president of Imperial Oil in the context of a motion to disqualify the trial judge.

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Lubrizol Corp., [1998] F.C.J. No. 1838 (FCTD) – motion to compel the production of privileged documents in the US case between Exxon and Lubrizol.