Abb Technology AG, ABB Inc v Hyundai Heavy Industries Co, Ltd, 2015 FCA 181 - The FCA suggested that although claim construction is reviewed on a correctness standard, claim construction is so heavily reliant on expert witnesses that perhaps it should be reviewed on a palpable and overriding error standard.
Akamai Technologies, Inc, v Limelight Networks, Inc, 09-1372 - The CAFC held that where more than one actor is involved in infringing the steps in a patent, one of the actors can be held liable for the entirety of the infringement if that actor “directs or controls the other’s performance.”
OrthoArm Incorporated v GAC International, LLC, 2015 ONSC 5097 - The ONSC was to undertake the analysis that would normally be done at a Markman hearing: to perform claim construction on the US patent and apply that construction to determine whether there is infringement.
Many startups are basing their business plans and valuations on their innovation; patents and industrial designs can be the most valuable asset of the company. One of the best strategies to secure protection for your innovation involves the filing of a self-written provisional patent application. On October 21, beginning at 5 p.m., PCK will be providing a hands-on session in which founders can learn the basics of patents from Andrew Currier.
Padcon Ltd v Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, 2015 FC 943 - Padcon's trade-mark for "THE OUTRIGGER STEAKHOUSE AND BAR" was expunged for lack of use by deviation. It's only use was the inclusion of the term "OUTRIGGER" on restaurant menu items and promotional materials.
ClearCorrect Operating LLC, et al v International Trade Commission (No 2014-1527) - An appeal to the Federal Circuit will determine whether the ITC has jurisdiction over digital patent infringement: the ability to block the importation of patent-infringing “articles” if those articles take the form of digital information.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc v Teva Canada Limited, 2015 FC 770 - Novartis was able to uphold its patent against allegations of invalidity from Teva, but not without the Federal Court making a number of razor thin distinctions between what the patent promised and what it did not.