- Filter by
- Categories
- Tags
- Show all
- Article
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Corporate
- Domain Names
- Employment
- Expungement
- Expungement
- Grey Marketing
- Industrial Designs
- Licensing
- Obviousness
- Opposition
- Passing Off
- Patent
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Strategy
- PCK News
- PM(NOC)
- Procedure
- Prosecution
- Services
- Summary
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Use
- Validity
- Abandonment
- Abstract Theorems
- Abuse of Process
- Accounting of Profits
- Alice/Mayo Test
- Ambiguity
- Anticipation
- Appeal
- Apple
- Artificial Intelligence
- Assignment
- Bargain Theory
- Biosimilar
- Biotech Patents
- Branding
- business
- CAFC
- Canada
- Certificate of Supplementary Protection
- Chemical Patent
- CIPO
- claim
- Claim Construction
- Class Actions
- College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
- combination drugs
- Commercial Success
- Common General Knowledge
- Confidential Information
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Costs
- Counterfeit
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- COVID-19
- Damages
- Data Protection
- Design Patents
- Distinctiveness
- Diversity
- DNA Patents
- Domain Names
- Dosage Range
- Double Patenting
- Due Care
- E-Commerce
- Enablement
- Estoppel
- Evidence
- Expert Evidence
- Fair Use
- Federal Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- File Wrapper Estoppel
- Food and Drug Regulations
- Fraud
- funding
- Generic Drugs
- Hague Agreement
- Indefiniteness
- Induced Infringement
- Industrial Designs
- Injunction
- Innovation
- Innovative Drugs
- Insufficient Disclosure
- Intellectual Property
- Inter Partes Review
- Investors
- IP Litigation
- IP Strategy
- IP Treaty
- IPIC
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm
- Licensing IP
- Madrid Protocol
- Methods of Medical Treatment
- Non-Infringing Alternative
- Non-Practicing Entity
- Novelty
- Obviousness
- Official Marks
- On-Sale Bar
- Overbreadth
- Ownership & Inventorship
- Passing Off
- Patent Act
- Patent Agent
- Patent Appeal Board
- Patent Application
- Patent Drafting
- Patent Fees
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Law
- Patent Lawyer
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Rules
- Patent Strategy
- Patent Term Adjustment
- Patent Textbook
- Patent Trolls
- Patent Validity
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Patents
- PCT
- Pharmaceutical Patent
- Pharmaceutical Pricing
- PM(NOC)
- PMPRB
- Prior Art
- Prior Disclosure
- prior use
- Priority
- Privilege
- Product Specificity
- Promise Doctrine
- Provisional Patent
- Punitive Damages
- Reinstatement
- Remedies
- SCOTUS
- Selection Patent
- Software
- Software Copyright
- Software Patent
- Sound Prediction
- Springboard Profits
- SRED
- Standard of Review
- Start-up
- Startups
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Technology
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Trademark Agent
- Trademark Expungement
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Law
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Registration
- Trademarks Act
- United States
- Use
- USPTO
- Utility
August 19, 2016
August 19, 2016
(No. 14-1802 Fed. Cir.) - The CAFC held that a patentee does not have to prove that the infringing features of a competitor’s product were the exclusive or predominant reason why consumers bought the competitor’s product to obtain an injunction for patent infringement. Rather, it is sufficient to prove that there was some connection between the infringing features and the demand for the competitor’s product.
August 8, 2016
August 8, 2016
2016 FC 883 - The Federal Court followed the longstanding rule against the use of patent prosecution file history in interpreting the claims of a patent, but made a strong case for why the patent prosecution file history is worth considering, as is common practice in the U.S.
August 8, 2016
August 8, 2016
In U.S. patent infringement, the “actual notice” requirement in 35 USC § 154(d) requires actual knowledge of a published patent application. Knowledge of related patents, even those sharing a description, and indirect references to a published patent application in emails may not be sufficient to prove actual notice.
August 2, 2016
August 2, 2016
2015 FC 959 - The Health Minister denied data protection for Cysview after finding it was not an “innovative drug”, and the FC indicated the scope of “innovative drug” does not extend to combinations of the enumerated variations of previously approved medicinal ingredients in the Regulations (salt, ester, enantiomer, solvate or polymorph).
May 6, 2016
May 6, 2016
2015 FC 875 - The FC noted that the law is unsettled when it comes to determining the appropriate date for assessing obvious-type double patenting.
April 26, 2016
April 26, 2016
We have prepared a guide that outlines the timelines and major spend points for two common patent filing strategies: a global patent filing and US-only patent filing.
April 22, 2016
April 22, 2016
2015 FC 997 - The FC found that the invention was merely to add a polymer to the slurry, which was known in the prior art, and to continue to do so until the slurry rigidified. The Court found this solution to be obvious to try, and sufficiently disclosed, even though the meaning of “rigidify” was never made clear.
April 22, 2016
April 22, 2016
2015 FC 1156 - The FC found that Idenix’s patent was invalid for a lack of utility, demonstrated or soundly predicted, and for insufficient disclosure.
April 11, 2016
April 11, 2016
2015 FC 570 - The FC favoured the respondent’s "blinded expert" evidence in which the experts provided their opinions before knowing what was claimed in the disputed patents.
April 5, 2016
April 5, 2016
2015 FC 125 - The existing patent was invalid on the grounds of lack of utility for having made a promise of utility that could not be demonstrated nor soundly predicted, was anticipated by a previous patent of the applicant that claimed an overlapping dosage range, and was also therefore made obvious by the same previous patent.
March 30, 2016
March 30, 2016
2015 FCA 116 - The FCA advised that where expert evidence plays a significant role, claim construction might involve subsidiary factual disputes reviewed on a palpable and overriding error standard, which is equivalent to the United States clear error standard.
March 28, 2016
March 28, 2016
PAB 1384 - If a pharmaceutical patent is construed to make a promise, then that promise must relate to how the invention will ultimately be used – not simply to the properties of the pharmaceutical itself.
February 26, 2016
February 26, 2016
The CAFC took issue with inconsistent statements between a provisional patent application and the subsequent formal patent and invalidated a number of the patent’s claims for being indefinite.
February 22, 2016
February 22, 2016
There are a lot of IP service providers out there. In this post I attempt to provide some guidelines for helping companies to assess IP counsel and choose the right one.
February 17, 2016
February 17, 2016
2015 FC 1205 - A quirk in the PM(NOC) rules was resolved that could make the entry of generics into the market even slower if the generic tries to make post-filing amendments to its application.
February 10, 2016
February 10, 2016
2015 FCA 115 - The FCA restated the law on functionality of industrial designs and the requirement that patent claims be construed on a claim-by-claim basis.
November 30, 2015
November 30, 2015
2015 FCA 249 - The Federal Court of Appeal clearly stated that the price regulation provisions apply not only to literal patent holders, but also to exclusive licensees of patents.
November 23, 2015
November 23, 2015
The CAFC has now granted a petition for a rehearing the case on this issue of whether or not the sale of bivalirudin from the supplier gave rise to an on-sale bar.
November 20, 2015
November 20, 2015
Broadly speaking, the TPP calls for two things: greater international cooperation and efficiency, and strengthening intellectual property rights across its 12 member states
November 16, 2015
November 16, 2015
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd v Exxonmobil Upstream, 2015 FC 1218 - The Federal Court has finally stated outright that it has the jurisdiction to vary patent ownership without encroaching upon the realm of provincial contract law.