×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Smart & BiggarPartner, Ottawa; Barrister and Solicitor; Patent and Trademark Agent
Jeremy E. Want

Jeremy E. Want

Not yet reviewed

55 Metcalfe Street Suite 900, P.O. Box 2999 Station D, Ottawa, ON K1P 5Y6

Litigation, Pharmaceutical, Industrial/Mechanical and 5 more

About Jeremy E. Want

Jeremy E. Want is a lawyer practicing litigation, pharmaceutical, industrial/mechanical and 5 other areas of law. Jeremy E. received a degree from University of Western Ontario in 1995, and has been licensed for 26 years. Jeremy E. practices at Smart & Biggar in Ottawa, ON.

Jeremy E. Want (Ottawa, Ontario)

Reviews for Jeremy E.

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Litigation
  • Intellectual Property 1
    • Trademarks
  • Energy
  • Other 5
    • Pharmaceutical
    • Industrial/Mechanical
    • Chemical & Industrial Biotechnology
    • Life Sciences - Regulatory & Compliance
    • Cleantech

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Partner, Ottawa; Barrister and Solicitor; Patent and Trademark Agent
    Firm Name
    Smart & Biggar
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Experience: Patent proceedings
    The Dow Chemical Company et al v Nova Chemicals Corporation, 2014 FC 844 - Successfully represented the plaintiffs as co-counsel in a patent infringement action. Phostech Lithium Inc v Valence Technology Inc, 2011 FCA 107 - With Francois Guay
    Jean-Sebastien Dupont, successfully represented Phostech Lithium Inc. in having the Federal Court of Appeal stay execution of aFederal Court judgment in a patent infringement case until issuance of the decision on appeal. Bauer Hockey Corp
    Nike International Limited v Easton Sports Canada Inc, 2010 FC 361
    aff'd 2011 FCA 83 - Successfully represented the plaintiffs in a patent infringement action. sanofi-aventis Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2007 FC 906 - Successfully resisted an appeal by the defendant of an order setting an early trial date. Trademark proceedings
    JTI MacDonald TM Corp v Imperial Tobacco Products Limited, 2013 FC 608 - Successfully resisted an appeal to the Federal Court of two decisions of the Trademarks Opposition Board refusing oppositions to two trademark applications
    Canada Post Corp v United States Postal Service, 2005 FC 1630 - Successful application for judicial review to the Federal Court of a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks to give public notice in respect of 13 official marks pursuant to Section 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trademarks Act. Smart & Biggar v Jarawan, 2006 FC 1254 - Successful appeal to the Federal Court of a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks refusing to expunge a trademark registration pursuant to Section 45 of the Trademarks Act. Trademark Opposition Board proceedings
    Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v Marcon, 2011 T.M.O.B. 9 - Successful opposition proceeding on behalf of the opponent. Parmalat Food Inc v Groupe Lactalis societe anonyme (2005), 45 C.P.R. (4th) 212 (T.M.O.B.) - Successful opposition proceeding on behalf of the opponent.

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2000, Ontario Bar
    2017, Alberta Bar
    Memberships

    Professional Involvement

    Memberships
    •fellow, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, member of IPIC's Litigation Committee
    •Member, Ontario Bar Association
    •Member, County of Carleton Law Association

    Bar Fellowship
    Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, member of IPIC's Litigation Committee
    •Member, Ontario Bar Association
    •Member, County of Carleton Law Association

    Speaking engagements

    •Update on Patents - 2014, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Webinar, February 2014
    •IP Responses to New Technologies (Panel Discussion), 18th Annual Intellectual Property Law - The Year in Review, Law Society of Upper Canada Continuing Professional Development program, Ottawa, January 2014
    •Canadian I.P. Law Update - Practical tips and information for U.S. counsel - Canadian I.P. Litigation (with Mark Evans and Matthew Zischka); Smart & Biggar Seminar, Chicago, Illinois, January 2013
    •Intellectual Property Rights: Practical Advice for the Non-IP Practitioner (with Steven B. Garland, L. Catherine Eckenswiller and Colin B. Ingram), Continuing Legal Education Seminar, County of Carlton Law Association, Ottawa, October 2006 Fellow: Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, member of IPIC's Litigation Committee

    • Member, Ontario Bar Association

    • Member, County of Carleton Law Association

    • Member, Canadian Bar Association; member of the National Intellectual Property Section

    Speaking engagements

    • "Intellectual Property Rights: Practical Advice for the Non-IP Practitioner" (with Steven B. Garland, L. Catherine Eckenswiller and Colin B. Ingram), Continuing Legal Education Seminar, County of Carlton Law Association, Ottawa, October 2006

    Media

    Publications

    • "Making IP Litigation in Canada More Attractive" (co-authors: Steven B. Garland and Colin B. Ingram), IP 360, August 2009

    • "Recent Developments Lead to Changing Face (and Pace) of Patent Litigation in Canada" (co-authors: Steven B. Garland and Colin B. Ingram), Patent World, 2007

    • "Court Confirms Criteria for Obtaining Official Marks," International Law Office Intellectual Property Newsletter, August 5, 2006

    • "The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Canada" (co-author: Steven B. Garland), Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Knowledge-Based Economy (Industry Canada research volume), February 2006

    • "End of the Road" (summary of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser; co-author: Steven B. Garland), Patent World, September 2004

    • "Markman-type Hearings Overturned in Canada," International Law Office, March 2004

    • "The Canadian Patent System: An Appropriate Balance Between the Rights of the Public and the Patentee" (co-author: Steven B. Garland), (1999), 16 C.I.P.R. 43

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    University of Manitoba
    Class of 1998
    LL.B.
    Other Education
    University of Western Ontario
    Class of 1995
    B.Sc.

    University of Western Ontario
    Class of 1995
    Hons.

    University of Western Ontario
    Class of 1995
    Chemistry

Jeremy E. Want

Partner, Ottawa; Barrister and Solicitor; Patent and Trademark Agent at Smart & Biggar
Not yet reviewed

55 Metcalfe Street Suite 900P.O. Box 2999 Station DOttawa, ON K1P 5Y6Canada

Show on map

Email Jeremy E. Want

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions