On June 22, 2026, the Federal Court released an amended version of the Case and Trial Management Guidelines for Complex Proceedings, Proceedings under the PM(NOC) Regulations, and Appeals under Subsection 56(1) of the Trademarks Act (the “Guidelines”), which introduces the Court’s new guidance for summary proceedings in IP proceedings (see last 2 pages).
The Guidelines on summary proceedings “intend to provide greater clarity and assistance to parties contemplating motions for summary judgment or summary trial”, including in proceedings commenced under the PM(NOC) Regulations. The Guidelines include:
A requirement that a request for summary judgment or summary trial be raised as early as possible, and in an action under the PM(NOC) Regulations, by the later of three months from the start of the proceeding or the close of pleadings, and before a trial date is set. A trial date will not be set in actions under the PM(NOC) Regulations until after this period has elapsed (new section 33.1).
An outline of the points for discussion at a first case management conference after a request for summary proceedings has been made, including any agreement on the procedure contemplated and overall timing, including a proposed schedule.
A list of suitable issues for summary judgment versus those for summary trial and the schedule for summary trial.
A procedure for resolving any disputes as to whether a summary motion may proceed, including that any dispute regarding same will be determined by the presiding judge in advance of the hearing of the summary motion based upon written submissions from the parties. The presiding judge may request additional oral or written submissions and shall make a decision as to whether the summary motion may proceed within 30 days of completed submissions.
Prior to the issuance of these Guidelines on summary proceedings, Justice Furlanetto of the Federal Court permitted the defendant, Zydus, to proceed with its proposed motion for summary trial on the issue of infringement of one of two patents relating to sacubitril-valsartan (Novartis’ ENTRESTO): Novartis v Zydus, 2026 CanLII 47875. The parties provided written submissions regarding the efficiency of bringing the motion for summary trial.
Novartis argued that Zydus’ proposed motion for summary trial would not streamline the proceeding, including as the action would continue in respect of the other patent and that if the motion is not successful, other issues of infringement would remain. Justice Furlanetto was not persuaded by Novartis’ arguments and considered that since the other patent expires in November 2026, the action in respect of same could proceed outside the statutory 24-month stay period.
Justice Furlanetto concluded that the “discrete infringement issue” raised by Zydus is suitable for summary trial and proceeding with same has the “potential to save the parties time and cost overall, and that there is a likelihood of overall efficiencies to be gained” of both the Court’s and parties’ resources.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance Group or the Pharmaceutical Litigation Group.
The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and life sciences regulatory law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.