Are there any cases in which particulars were ordered of bald denials?

While Apotex points to a number of cases in which particulars were ordered of bald denials, the cases are distinguishable. For example, Apotex relies upon Teknion Furniture Systems v. Precision Mfg. Inc. (1992), 45 C.P.R. (3d) 335 (F.C.T.D.) at p. 339 for the following proposition: In patent infringement actions . . . a plaintiff should set out i. facts from which it follows that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to do certain specified things, or, in other words, a succinct description stripped of all unnecessary and irrelevant verbiage, of the essential features which the defendant is alleged to have taken; and ii. facts that constitute an encroachment by the defendant on the plaintiff’s rights, i.e. that the defendant has done one or more specified things that the plaintiff has the right to do.