AI Report* Prepared for Craig Wilson and Company – 2026-10-15

Prepared with AI assistance — see disclaimer below.

Federal Court Decisions

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Wang

• Citation: 2026 FC 1244
• Court: Federal Court
• Decision date: 2026-10-08 (heard over five days, June and July 2026)
• Court file number: T-1887-17
• Judge: McHaffie J.
• Area: Trademark and Passing Off
• Classification: Mixed Substantive and Procedural Decision
• Legislation and provisions considered: Trademarks Act, ss. 7(b), 7(c), 20, 22; Federal Courts Rules 466(b), 467, 469, 470
• Related decisions or appeal status: Enforces the permanent injunction in Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Wang, 2019 FC 1389 (Roy J., summary trial). The penalty phase is still to be scheduled. Appeal status not verified as of 2026-10-15.

Summary

The 2019 summary-trial judgment permanently enjoined the defendants from infringing 29 registered LOUIS VUITTON marks, among them the word mark, the LV Design, the FLOWER Designs and the TOILE MONOGRAM Design. It also enjoined depreciation of goodwill and passing off. The parties signed a 2021 settlement waiving enforcement, conditional on compliance with the injunction. Louis Vuitton then alleged that Audrey Wang breached the injunction by selling counterfeit goods from a Richmond, BC mall store and a WeChat page. Its investigator made test purchases of a wallet on 2025-12-06 and a scarf on 2026-01-28. The contempt hearing proceeded on oral evidence under Rule 470.

The Court found civil contempt beyond a reasonable doubt on both sales and exercised its discretion to enter the finding. The substantive IP issue was whether the goods were counterfeit, and so infringing. The Court accepted the opinion of Louis Vuitton’s in-house IP counsel, based on photographs, on stitching, SKUs, label and trademark placement, and colourways not offered. It held that a brand-owner employee may give reliable genuineness evidence, since manufacturing details are known only within the company. The “legitimate second-hand goods” theory failed because second-hand goods must still be genuine. The decision consolidates the Federal Court’s approach to proving counterfeiting and confirms that contempt is a meaningful remedy for repeat infringers. Late disclosure was cured by adjournment applying R v Bjelland.

Key holdings

• Selling or offering counterfeit goods bearing registered marks is infringement under s. 20, use of the marks, depreciation of goodwill under s. 22, and both traditional and extended passing off under ss. 7(b) and (c) [33], [74], [77]–[78].
• Contempt requires only intentional performance of the prohibited act. Intent is not an element of trademark infringement (Mattel) [41], [75].
• A brand owner’s trained employee may give admissible and reliable evidence that goods are counterfeit, including from photographs alone, without independent laboratory testing [67]–[68].
• A low price and the possibility of a second-hand market do not raise a reasonable doubt where the goods are shown, independently of price, not to be genuine [69]–[70].
• The moving party need not prove an “ongoing commercial enterprise” to establish breach of an infringement injunction [83].

Result

Contempt found against Ms. Wang. Penalty and costs of the contempt motion and of the April 8, 2026 show cause order are deferred to a further hearing [91]–[94].

dTechs EPM Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

• Citation: 2026 FC 1235
• Court: Federal Court
• Decision date: 2026-10-06 (heard 2026-09-01, by videoconference)
• Court file number: T-227-17
• Judge: Fothergill J.
• Area: Patent
• Classification: Mixed Substantive and Procedural Decision
• Legislation and provisions considered: Patent Act (validity: anticipation, obviousness); Federal Courts Rules 279(c); Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses
• Related decisions or appeal status: Redetermination remitted by dTechs EPM Ltd v British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 2023 FCA 115, from 2021 FC 190. Appeal status not verified as of 2026-10-15.

Summary

In 2021 the Court dismissed dTechs’ infringement action on Canadian Patent No. 2,549,087 and held the asserted claims invalid for anticipation and obviousness (2021 FC 190). The FCA upheld non-infringement. However, it admitted new evidence, namely the expert’s working agreement and invoices, suggesting that counsel had penned the first drafts of BC Hydro’s expert reports. It held that this could affect only the finding that dependent claim 4 was invalid, and permitted a redetermination of claim 4 (2023 FCA 115 at paras 20, 122). After dTechs asserted claim 4 against BC Hydro in 2024, BC Hydro sought redetermination. It moved as a preliminary issue for a declaration that the new evidence did not affect the weight given to its expert, Mr. Shepherd, who has since died.

The Court granted the motion and reinstated the invalidity of claim 4, which was anticipated by the 2003 De Reference (2021 FC 190 at paras 219–234). Evidence from the expert’s business partner explained the drafting process. Counsel transcribed the expert’s answers in real time into a shared “living document” during videoconferences, which explained why the invoices contained no “drafting” entries. The evidence also showed that the expert received the De Reference about a month before the first draft. The reports therefore reflected the expert’s own opinions. The decision applies the FCA’s guidance that counsel’s close involvement in drafting patent expert reports is acceptable, provided the reports present the expert’s own substantive and objective opinion.

Key holdings

• On a redetermination limited to the effect of new evidence on an expert’s weight, the Court does not revisit admissibility under White Burgess, and Rule 279(c) does not require exclusion because the expert is now deceased [17], [19].
• The rule in Browne v Dunn is discretionary and inapposite where the expert cannot be heard [18].
• Evidence from a co-author bound by the Code of Conduct is accepted to explain how the reports were prepared, but not as “oath helping” about the expert’s character [20].
• Counsel recording an expert’s answers in real time during consultations is consistent with the reports reflecting the expert’s own opinions. The new evidence therefore has no impact on the weight of the expert’s evidence [22], [28]–[32].
• The invalidity of dependent claim 4 of the 087 Patent is reinstated [33].

Result

Motion granted. Declaration that the new evidence has no impact on the weight of the expert evidence. Invalidity of claim 4 of CA 2,549,087 reinstated. Costs to be agreed or addressed in written submissions.

* AI disclaimer: This digest was prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and reviewed by Craig Wilson and Company before publication. It summarizes publicly available decisions of the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada for general information only, and is not legal advice. Summaries may not capture every aspect of a decision; consult the official reasons, linked in each entry, before relying on any part of this digest, including its summaries, key holdings and results.

Updated October 16, 2026