New Horizon Law Corporation
Business dealings sometimes lead to legal disputes. While we work with our clients to avoid litigation, including through negotiation, arbitration or mediation, contentious matters sometimes result in legal actions.
When they do, we are vigorous in advancing our clients' interests, and proceeding to court if necessary.
We have experience in various contractual and shareholder disputes, builder's liens, construction disputes, environmental litigation, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty matters, as well as bankruptcy, insolvency and collection work.
From patent holders suing to enforce their patent rights to parties seeking damages from misuse of their confidential information, intellectual property litigation covers both statutory and non-statutory types of intellectual property protection.
Federal legislation governs rights under patent, trademark and copyright law. Other types of intellectual property rights, including the protection of confidential information, exist at common law.
Our experience includes litigating all of these areas of intellectual property law, up to and including trial.
Copyright is the intellectual property protection covering written and artistic works, whether they are painting, songs, performances or sculptures. In Canada, computer software code is also subject to copyright protection.
We have consulted with authors, artists and performers regarding protection and licensing of their work, and have acted for both plaintiffs and defendants in copyright litigation matters, up to and including trial.
Trademarks are words, logos, designs or a combination of these elements which serve to distinguish the wares or services of one person or organization from other competitors in the marketplace.
A registered trademark provides that only the registered owner of the trademark, or those licensed by the registered owner, may use the trademark in Canada.
Shaun Cody is a registered Trademark Agent and can work with business owners in filing trademark applications and pursuing trademark protection from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.
Patents serve to protect inventions, by giving the patent owner (or someone licensed by the patent owner) the exclusive right to make, use or sell the patented invention within Canada for a set period of time. Patent rights protect the way in which a device or method works or functions. Unlike trademark rights, patent rights cannot be extended after the initial term.
Patent registrations serve to prevent competitors from taking the idea and manufacturing, using or selling products using the subject matter of the patent.
We work with a number of patent agents to assist clients in pursuing patent protection for their idea.
Shaun obtained an Order requiring nearly $700,000 to be repaid for distribution between legitimate creditors; the most major being his client. In one of the first appeals under the new Alberta Rules of Court, the decision of the Master was upheld by a Judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench. See Shengli Oilfield Freet Petroleum Equipment Co. v. Ascension Virtual Group Ltd. (2010) ABQB 597 (CanLII), 2010 ABQB 597 (Alta. Q.B. Master).
Very early in his legal career, Shaun argued what has become one of Alberta's leading cases on Anton Piller injunctions.
See: Capitanescu et al. v. Universal Weld Overlays Inc. et al., (1996), 141 D.L.R. (4th) 751, 71 C.P.R. (3d) 37 (Alta. Q.B.).
Shaun successfully opposed attempts to add further defendants years after environmental contamination was first discovered.
See Rosenich v. Welke, 2003 ABQB 876 (CanLII) (Alta. Q.B.)
The Court of Appeal, for reasons Shaun argued in the Court of Queen’s Bench, found a competing lien claim invalid.
The transfer of farm property by father to sons (Shaun’s client) was confirmed on appeal and the plaintiff's allegations of civil conspiracy were likewise dismissed. The Plaintiff's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed. See: Palechuk v. Fahrlander,(2006),  397 A.R. 151, (2006), 273 D.L.R. (4th) 332 (Alta. C.A.).
Shaun obtained damages for defamation and passing off in respect of a domain name confusingly similar to his client's website. See: Inform Cycle Ltd. v. Draper,(2008), 67 C.P.R. (4th) 151, 438 A.R. 80 (Alta. Q.B.).
Shaun obtained what was then one of the largest defamation awards in Alberta for false allegations of patent infringement repeated by the Defendants. Aggravated damages were also received for the multiple instances of defamation, which the court found were motivated by malice against a business competitor. See: Universal Weld Overlays Inc. v. Shaben, 2001 ABQB 1009.
Shaun successfully defended his clients against allegations of patent infringement in respect of welding technology. See Capitanescu et al. v. Universal Weld Overlays Inc. et al.  A.J. No. 740 75 C.P.R. (3d) 145 (Alta. Q.B.).
Shaun, along with co-counsel, successfully defended his clients from allegations of patent infringement in relation to three separate patents for downhole oil tools. Shaun was also successful in obtaining a declaration that one of the patents was invalid, the independent claim of another was invalid, and that allegations of infringement made to third parties were false and misleading. See: Excalibre Oil Tools Ltd v. Advantage Products Inc., 2016 FC 1279 (CanLII)
Shaun represented an Albertan Company whose trade-mark was infringed by a large media organization in British Columbia. The Federal Court found that the trade-mark was infringed, that the defendants passed off their confusingly similar marks, both in print and online, as being associated with or connected to the plaintiff’s trademark. Damages and costs were awarded to Shaun’s clients. See: Source Media Group v. Black Press Group Ltd. and Lisa Furquharson (2014) FC 1014.
ARAM Systems Ltd. v. NovAtel Inc. (2008), ABQB 441; (2009) ABCA 262; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed January 28, 2010) was groundbreaking in that it marked the first time a Canadian Court decided the issue of inventorship of a US patent and other pending patent applications, including a Canadian patent application utilizing American law of derivation. Shaun was involved in all levels of the case, from trial to the Supreme Court of Canada written submissions. More recently, Shaun has been involved disputes over ownership of the subject matter of patent applications and academic works.
Janus Capital et. al. v. Petro Motion et al. (2015) [unreported] Shaun successfully applied for a security for costs order in a matter involving disputes as to ownership of an invention for which patent protection was sought. QB Proceedings-CVQ15JANUS1.
A claim brought by a corporation that had ceased to exist was struck with costs to Shaun's client. Other information sought was provided by the Plaintiff by the time the motion was heard, and was the subject of comment by the Court. See: Reese v. Investissements Nolinor Inc., 2016 FC 1405 (CanLII)
Encore Electric Inc. v Haves Holdings, 2017 ABQB 803 (CanLII)
Shaun successfully had builder's liens struck and a certificate of lis pendens discharged from the landlord's title. The liens were found to have been wrongly filed against the wrong title.