57,546 result(s)
-
1.
Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2002 FCT 706 - 2002-06-25
Federal Court DecisionsThe proposed amendment would henceforth consider "filing date" to include priority date. [...] Date de la revendication 28.1 (1) La date de la revendication d'une demande de brevet est la date de dépôt de celle-ci, sauf si_: [...] "Filing date" in the Patent Act, is expressly defined as the date on which a patent application is filed in Canada and not the priority date.
-
2.
Bayer Cropscience LP v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FCA 77 - 2018-04-13
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsThus, as of March 15, 2013, the April 19, 2012 date was the filing date recorded by the USPTO. [...] 28.1 (1) La date de la revendication d’une demande de brevet est la date de dépôt de celle-ci, sauf si : [...] [61] When assessing the correct claim date what is determinative is the filing date of the previously filed application, not the date indicated in the request.
-
3.
Canada (National Revenue) v. Nerland - 2011 FC 715 - 2011-06-16
Federal Court Decisions3. E-mail from Bayshore to SNC dated March 6, 2007. 4. Privileged E-mails to/from SNC and Bayshore dated March 15, 2007. [...] 9. Privileged E-mail from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006. 10. Privileged E-mails to/from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006; Internal SNC E-mails dated September 6 and 7, 2006. [...] 9. Privileged E-mail from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006. 10. Privileged E-mails to/from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006; Internal SNC E-mails dated September 6 and 7, 2006.
-
4.
Canada (National Revenue) v. Moodys LLP - 2011 FC 713 - 2011-06-16
Federal Court Decisions3. E-mail from Bayshore to SNC dated March 6, 2007. 4. Privileged E-mails to/from SNC and Bayshore dated March 15, 2007. [...] 9. Privileged E-mail from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006. 10. Privileged E-mails to/from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006; Internal SNC E-mails dated September 6 and 7, 2006. [...] 9. Privileged E-mail from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006. 10. Privileged E-mails to/from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006; Internal SNC E-mails dated September 6 and 7, 2006.
-
5.
Canada (National Revenue) v. Nerland - 2011 FC 714 - 2011-06-16
Federal Court Decisions3. E-mail from Bayshore to SNC dated March 6, 2007. 4. Privileged E-mails to/from SNC and Bayshore dated March 15, 2007. [...] 9. Privileged E-mail from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006. 10. Privileged E-mails to/from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006; Internal SNC E-mails dated September 6 and 7, 2006. [...] 9. Privileged E-mail from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006. 10. Privileged E-mails to/from SNC and GTLPC dated September 6, 2006; Internal SNC E-mails dated September 6 and 7, 2006.
-
6.
Stoyek v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 47 - 2017-01-13
Federal Court DecisionsIn other words, the pension date becomes the delimiting date for determining the commencement date for paying an EIA, [which for ease of reference I call the “EIA date” to distinguish it from the “EIA suffering date”]. [...] • the EIA suffering date is February 17, 2009 but the pension date is March 25, 2010 [the EIA date is the subsequent pension date of March 25, 2010 – the Panels’ decision would be modified to this date]; and [...] • regardless of the earlier pension dates, the EIA suffering date is March 1, 2011 [the EIA date is the EIA suffering date of March 1, 2011, as found by the Panels].
-
7.
Bayer Cropscience LP v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 178 - 2017-02-13
Federal Court DecisionsGiven that this date is less than 12 months after the priority date (whether it is April 3, 2012 or April 19, 2012), Bayer is entitled to use the claim date of the ‘671 Application. [...] Claim date Date de la revendication 28.1 (1) The date of a claim in an application for a patent in Canada (the “pending application”) is the filing date of the application, unless [...] 28.1 (1) La date de la revendication d’une demande de brevet est la date de dépôt de celle-ci, sauf si :
-
8.
Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc - 2016 FCA 267 - 2016-11-04
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsNot every patent has a priority date but all have a filing date. The last date is the publication date of the patent, which occurs at the end of a confidentiality period of 18 months – which can be shorter at the applicant’s request – which begins on the earlier of the priority date or the filing date of a patent. [...] ...this priority date of the '784 Patent [the later patent] cannot be the relevant date. [...] He held that the correct date was the publication date of the patent.
-
9.
Popovich v. The King - 2024 TCC 44 - 2024-04-19
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsWhy the Dates Matter Most In This Application [8] And now to the dates concerning this extension application. [...] The Applicant does not assert that the confirmation was never sent, but merely that the date it was received is later than the date it bears. [...] DATE OF ORDER: DATE OF AMENDED REASONS FOR ORDER: April 17, 2024
-
10.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. - 2016 FCA 119 - 2016-04-20
Federal Court of Appeal Decisionsc) The claim date is the priority date if there is one; otherwise the claim date is the filing date. [...] The first date is the priority date of the first patent. The middle date is the priority date of the second patent, which in this case is after Pfizer’s ‘902 patent application was published. [...] Specifically, it would be inappropriate to use any date after the claim date of the second patent (whether in a particular case the claim date is the same as the priority date – as it is here – or the filing date).
-
11.
Dangerfield v. The Queen - 2002-05-01
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[14] The disposition sheet is dated April 21, 1997 and purports to be signed by the judge on that date. [...] I accept that the disposition sheet bearing the date "April 21, 1997" was signed by the judge on that date. [...] that an order cannot have an earlier "made" date, even if not effective until after the made date, and secondly, the subject order cannot likely be said to have a later effective date just because the only aspect of it that is date sensitive, namely the first payment date for child support payments, is a future date.
-
12.
Macdonald v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2001 FCT 678 - 2001-06-21
Federal Court Decisions(i) the date of the pension medical examination; or (ii) the date on which medical information, e.g. the date of a medical report submitted at the time of the pension medical examination, establishes a change in assessment, [...] - the date of the of the pension medical examination, whichever is the earliest date, as the case may be. [...] [11] In its decision of December 11, 1998, the Board stated that "[t]he effective date shall be 30 January 1998, date of request".
-
13.
Charron v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2005 FCA 442 - 2005-12-23
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsDate: 20051223 Docket: A-643-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 442 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. [...] Date: 20051223 Docket: A-643-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 442 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. [...] release date following the imposition of the additional sentence, we would take as starting point the date of imposition of the first sentence, January 2, 2000, and set the date at 2/3 of the time between this date and the new date of end of term, January 2, 2009, which would give a statutory release date of January
-
14.
Elanco v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FC 5 - 2019-01-02
Federal Court DecisionsTherefore, the date of filing may differ from the date of original receipt should the submission be considered administratively incomplete. [...] Once the determination has been made, the date of filing will be the date 60 days after the date the FDA received submissions. [...] [76] By suggesting alternative filing dates in its submissions, Elanco acknowledges that determining a date of filing is fact specific.
-
15.
Procter & Gamble Company v. Commissioner of Patents - 2006 FC 976 - 2006-08-15
Federal Court Decisions[12] As I have stated, as a matter of law, the date on which the 376 patent was issued was the date shown on the face of the patent. [...] [15] The point is that Parliament intended section 43 to create certainty regarding the issue date by providing that, as a matter of law, the issue date is the date shown on the face of the patent. [...] Thus, in the ordinary course, patent certificates are prepared in advance and are post-dated to the intended date of release.
-
16.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Charkaoui - 2018 FC 849 - 2018-08-21
Federal Court DecisionsThis report, dated May 26, 2006, was prepared by CSIS. In the documentation package dated October 6, 2006, (see AGC00655) it is Tab 4. [...] It states, among other things, his date of birth (August 6, 1963) and the date on which he arrived in Canada (October 1, 1983). [...] It states, among other things, his date of birth (March 25, 1973) and the date of his arrival in Canada (October 1994).
-
17.
Hodge v. Canada (National Revenue) - 2009 FCA 210 - 2009-06-19
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsDate: 20090619 Docket: A-524-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 210 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. [...] [12] On the facts of this case, Mr Hodge says, the effective date of revocation should be 90 days from the date of the Order of the Court in this matter. [...] [18] Thus, the question is, which date takes priority under section 147.1(12) when the Minister issues a notice of intent to revoke as of one date, and the administrator applies for revocation as of a later date?
-
18.
Antiballistic Security and Protection Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) - 2008 FC 587 - 2008-05-08
Federal Court DecisionsIt follows that since the priority date relating to the first invention is disclaimed; the applicable priority date for Canadian entry is the filing date of the Second Invention. [...] (a) the 30-month period after the priority date; or (b) if the applicant pays the additional fee for late payment set out in item 11 of Schedule II before the expiry of the 42-month period after the priority date, the 42-month period after the priority date. [...] a) dans les trente mois suivant la date de priorité; b) s’il verse la surtaxe pour paiement en souffrance prévue à l’article 11 de l’annexe II avant l’expiration du quarante-deuxième mois suivant la date de priorité, dans les quarante-deux mois suivant cette date.
-
19.
Metro Goldwyn Mayer Inc. v. Stargate Connections Inc. - 2004 FC 1185 - 2004-08-30
Federal Court DecisionsThe relevant date for the assessment of confusion under section 16 is the date of first use (August 1995) and not, as the Opponent submitted, the date of the Registrar's adjudication of the matter. [...] There is some uncertainty in the jurisprudence concerning the appropriate date for the latter but I think the date that is generally accepted is the date of the filing of the opposition.... [...] DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 7, 2003 REASONS FOR ORDER : SIMPSON, J. DATED: AUGUST 30, 2004
-
20.
Apotex Inc v. Pfizer Canada Inc - 2014 FC 159 - 2014-02-20
Federal Court Decisions[4] The first start date is the period beginning May 15, 2007, the date of the “patent hold” letter for an Apotex product for Amorphous Atorvastatin. [...] [17] In my view, the appropriate date, even though not certified by the Minister, would be the “patent hold” date of May 25, 1996. [...] DATE OF HEARING: June 13, 2013 REASONS FOR ORDER: AALTO P. DATED: February 20, 2014
-
21.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Hashem - 2019 FC 9 - 2019-01-04
Federal Court DecisionsProviding this attestation is not consistent with the “date of application” being an undefined future date; [...] The Judge disregarded the difference between the “filing date” and the “receipt date”; and [...] La date à laquelle une personne signe le formulaire de demande est la date de dépôt.
-
22.
Nelson v. The Queen - 2001 FCT 1132 - 2001-10-18
Federal Court DecisionsDate: 20011018 Docket: T-942-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1132 BETWEEN: [...] 32. By motion in writing dated August 27, 2001, the Plaintiff appealed the Order of Prothonotary Hargrave, dated August 16, 2001. [...] dated May 17, 2001), June 14, 2001 (Plaintiff's motion dated May 24, 2001), August 27, 2001 (Plaintiff's motion dated July 30, 2001), August 27, 2001 (Plaintiff's motion dated August 13, 2001), August 27, 2001 (Plaintiff's motion dated August 13, 2001) and September 25, 2001 (Plaintiff's motion dated August 27, 2001).
-
23.
Boudreau v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) - 2005 FCA 304 - 2005-09-20
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsDate: 20050920 Docket: A-248-05 Citation: 2005 FCA 304 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. [...] It must also specify a proposed effective date for the revocation. The proposed effective date cannot be earlier than the date specified in subsection 147.1(11)(j) through (p), which varies depending upon the reason for the proposed revocation. [...] The second aspect is the effective date of the revocation (the registration is revoked as of the date specified in the notice of revocation).
-
24.
Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. - 2014 FC 876 - 2014-09-15
Federal Court DecisionsDiscoveries on the Start Date Issue are imminent. [14] The trial of the Start Date Issue is set for four days commencing June 22, 2015. [...] All of these interlocutory steps not only have eliminated the Start Date Issue trial dates but further interlocutory proceedings may very well jeopardize the actual trial dates. [...] 4. The Bifurcation Order dated February 20, 2014 is hereby vacated and the dates for the trial of the Start Date Issue are hereby released.
-
25.
Szebenyi v. Canada - 2003 FCA 81 - 2003-02-14
Federal Court of Appeal Decisionsj) Order of Martineau, J. dated September 27, 2002; k) Order of Beaudry J., dated October 2, 2002; [...] m) letter dated August 8, 2002; n) letter dated August 19, 2002 and bill of costs for $1,013.85; [...] l) letter dated August 8, 2002; m) letter dated August 19, 2002 and bill of costs for $1,013.85;