The Court dismissed the appeal of a Prothonotary's decision refusing to strike parts of the Statement of Claim.

The Court applied the general principle set out in previous Section 8 cases that it should be hesitant to strike these claims at the pleadings stage as matters of interpretation of the section should be deferred to trial.

The innovator sought to strike on the basis that the plaintiff had not pled that it is a "second person" under the Regulations. The Court found that the defendant's arguments were better suited to its Statement of Defence and not a motion to strike.

The full text of the decision can be found at: