Moore v Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55 - The Court referred to UK authorities that described patent law as an example of a highly technical area where “expert witnesses require a high level of instruction by the lawyers”, supposedly to liken the highly technical area of patent law to the highly technical area of medical malpractice with respect to its reliance on expert evidence.
Atticus Canada Inc v Atticus Management LLC, 2014 TMOB 196 - Evidence of trade-mark use consisting of copies of license agreements allowing Atticus Capital LP to use the Mark was taken to demonstrate use in association with financial services generally, but not in association with investment advice.
Commissioner’s Decision # 1371 - The Commissioner refused to grant GlaxoSmithKline’s patent application for an “influenza vaccine formulation for intradermal delivery” due to obviousness since there was always a motivation to use the ID route, but it had always been impractical until the advent of a short needle device.
Google, Inc v Oracle America, Inc, 14-410 - This case would put at issue whether Java’s method headers are subject to copyright protection, or whether they are excluded by Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act for being a system or method of operation.
Commissioner’s Decision # 1372 - The Patent Appeal Board reversed an examiner’s finding of obviousness for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,554,498, which discloses a virtual reality simulator for training users in the skill of welding.
Commissioner’s Decision # 1369 - Two elements of the invention were found to be inventive: (1) the “push” process for keeping status information up-to-date, and (2) the automatic notification system that automatically sends an email message only when a delivery status has changed.
Bill C-8 is said to broaden the enforcement measures available to protect copyright and trade-mark rights and to curtail commercial activity in counterfeit goods, and is said to expand the scope of what can be registered as a trade-mark and modernizes the trade-mark application and opposition process. Several definitional changes are also made to key terms in the Trade-marks Act.
The proposed amendments are said to clarify the patent listing requirements as they relate to single medicinal ingredients found in combination drugs and confirm Health Canada’s established practices which, in light of recent Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions, may need to change.
Dr Falk Pharma GMBH v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2014 FC 1117 - Pursuant to section 52 of the Patent Act, the Federal Court ordered that the Commissioner of Patents add Peter Gruber to the list of inventors for Canadian Patent No. 2,297,832. Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH, the applicant and owner of the patent, inadvertently omitted Gruber’s name from the list of inventors.
Bardsley v Stewart, 2014 NSCA 106 - The Court found that the order was fair as it was merely ordering that Bardsley transfer his interests in the ‘770 Application to the extent possible, thus stopping just short of ordering assignment.