- 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
July 3, 2014
July 3, 2014
Teva Canada Limited v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2014 FCA 138 - The Court held that punitive and exemplary damages cannot be available where the statutory regime underlying the claim explicitly or implicitly precludes them. This is the case under the PM(NOC) Regulations.
July 3, 2014
July 3, 2014
Hospira Healthcare Corporation v Canada (Health), 2014 FC 179 - The Court determined that a pharmaceutical innovator benefiting from data protection has standing where that data protection is challenged.
July 3, 2014
July 3, 2014
Nautilus Inc v Biosig Instruments Inc, No 13-369, 572 US ____ (2014) - On the matter of interpreting the meaning of electrodes in a "spaced relationship with each other", the US Supreme Court held that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit.
July 3, 2014
July 3, 2014
Limelight Networks Inc v Akamai, No 12–786, 572 US ____ (2014) - The US Supreme Court reaffirmed that induced infringement requires direct infringement.
June 20, 2014
June 20, 2014
Alice Corp v CLS Bank, No 13–298, 573 US ____ (2014) - The US Supreme Court rejected patent claims that “relate to a computerized scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’" for being drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement. Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
May 26, 2014
May 26, 2014
Apotex Inc v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2014 FC 159 - The Court confirmed that bifurcation of a PM(NOC) proceeding is not limited to liability/damages, and held that “[i]t is open to the Court to bifurcate any issue which will result in the saving of time, cost and judicial resources.” The issue need not be a threshold issue determinative of the proceedings.
April 15, 2014
April 15, 2014
Mediatube Corp. and Northvu Inc v Bell Canada et al, 2014 FC 237 - The Court dismissed a motion to remove Bereskin & Parr as solicitors of record for Mediatube for a conflict of interest, finding that “[w]hile there may be some circumstances where related companies could be considered as one entity and one client, the circumstances in the present case do not lead to that conclusion.”
March 26, 2014
March 26, 2014
Abbvie Corporation v Janssen Inc - 2014 FC 178 - The Court dismissed the appeal of the fixing of a trial date made by the Case Management Prothonotary.
March 21, 2014
March 21, 2014
Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc v Teva Canada Limited - 2014 FCA 69 - The Court stated that whether there can be recovery for unauthorized indications under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations is a question of fact, and that the purpose of section 8 damages is to compensate generics for a delay caused by NOC Proceedings.
March 21, 2014
March 21, 2014
Kirouac-Couture c ERL Étude et Recherche Inc, 2014 QCCQ 1405 - The Court held that ERL’s failure to provide the relevant disclosure vitiates Couture’s consent to enter the contract for preparation of the patent application.
March 21, 2014
March 21, 2014
Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc v Teva Canada Limited - 2014 FCA 65 - The Court dismissed Sanofi’s appeal to amend its statement of defence in a PM(NOC) proceeding. It is not sufficient that allowing the amendment would not be unjust. What is required is that any injustice to the other party is capable of being compensated by an award of costs and the interest of justice must be served.
March 10, 2014
March 10, 2014
Pfizer Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FCA 54 - The Court rejected Pfizer's argument that the trial judge did not properly apply the R. v. J.-L.J., 2000 SCC 51 case when assessing the admissibility of what Pfizer alleged were novel scientific theories put forth by Apotex’s expert.
March 10, 2014
March 10, 2014
Valeant Canada LP v Canada (Health), 2014 FCA 50 - The Court dismissed an appeal from the Federal Court’s decision to grant Valeant’s motion to disqualify Cobalt’s in-house lawyer from any further involvement in the application before the Court on the ground that he could be presumed to have Valeant’s confidential information.
February 18, 2014
February 18, 2014
Valeant Canada LP v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals – 2013 FC 1254 Cobalt moved, pursuant to s. 6(5)(b) of the PM(NOC) Regulations, to dismiss as an abuse of […]
February 11, 2014
February 11, 2014
Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC – 2014 FC 38 In this case Pfizer brought a prohibition application under the PM(NOC) Regulations to prevent the […]
January 30, 2014
January 30, 2014
University of California v Commissioner of Patents [2014 FC 80] Background The Applicant – University of California – sought judicial review pursuant to s. 18.1 […]
January 27, 2014
January 27, 2014
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Apotex Inc. [2014 FCA 13] Background This is an appeal of the summary judgment decision of Justice Zinn where he declared a […]
January 23, 2014
January 23, 2014
AbbVie Corporation v Janssen Inc. [2014 FC 55] Background The action is in respect of a patent directed to human antibodies capable of binding a […]
January 7, 2014
January 7, 2014
Alcon Canada Inc. v Apotex Inc. [2012 FC 410] Background The patent at issue is Canadian Patent 2,195,094. The patent is for a topical ophthalmic […]
January 7, 2014
January 7, 2014
Gilead Sciences Inc. v Canada (Health) [2013 FC 1270] Bristol-Myers Squibb v Canada(Health) [2013 FC 1271] Gilead Sciences Inc. v Canada(Health) [2013 FC 1272] Background […]