Blair v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 861 - In coming to its finding of obviousness, the Commissioner determined that while the combination of the elements in the invention as a whole was novel, it did not involve ingenuity since there was a “trend in the art” of installing video systems in a wide variety of transportation systems.
Dow Chemical Co v NOVA Chemicals Corp, 2014 FC 844 - The Federal Court found that NOVA Chemicals infringed Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705, owned by The Dow Chemical Company, by NOVA’s use of its “SURPASS” polyethylene product. Allegations of invalidity for lack of utility, claims broader than any invention made or disclosed, anticipation, obviousness, double patenting, and insufficiency of the specification were unsuccessful.
USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline: Tracy W. Druce, D2014-13 - Tracy W. Druce, an executive partner at the American IP firm Novak Druce Connolly Bove & Quigg LLP was disciplined for not adequately supervising a non-lawyer assistant
D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc  FCAFC 115 - The Federal Court of Australia Full Court upheld the validity of Australian Patent No. 686004, which claims an isolated sequence of DNA useful for cancer diagnosis, as qualifying as a “manner of manufacture” and thus patentable subject matter pursuant to section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.
Louis Brown et al v HMTQ et al, 2014 FC 831 - Canada successfully argued that the inventor made an untrue material allegation for having not indicated in the patent application that he was a public servant, but whether this would invalidate the patent was considered a genuine issue requiring a trial.
E Mishan & Sons, Inc v Supertek Canada Inc, 2014 FC 326 - The Federal Court dismissed an infringement claim made by the plaintiffs regarding the sale of self-expanding garden hoses by the defendants because the infringed claims were declared invalid for obviousness.
Newco Tank Corp v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 287 - The person of ordinary skill in the art was determined to have background knowledge that there was a heat inefficiency problem that the invention seeks to address. The only evidence for this proposition is that it was discussed under the “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION” heading of the patent.
Low v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2014 BCSC 1469 - This decision brings one step closer the possibility of wide-ranging, class-based, third-party liability created by patents that are found to be “wrongfully obtained”.