PATENTS
Practice
TMR Energy Ltd. v. State Property Fund of Ukraine, [2005] 3 F.C.R. 111 (F.C.A.) holding prothonotary could not determine merits of application for registration, recognition, enforcement of foreign judgment, qua application, because neither motion nor action contemplated by Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, r. 50(2) and Rules not otherwise granting such jurisdiction to prothonotaries—Neither explicitly nor by necessary implication overruling AB Hassle v. Apotex Inc. (2000), 195 F.T.R. 264 (F.C.T.D.) holding motion pursuant to Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, s. 6(5) “motion under the Rules”, not motion for summary judgment and r. 50(1) applies to confer jurisdiction upon prothonotaries to hear, determine same—Application to dismiss s. 6(5) application for prohibition order dismissed.
Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) (T-1171-06, 2007 FC 452, Tabib P., order dated 2/5/07, 12 pp.)