Commissioner’s Decision #1376 - The Application, which sought to patent what is essentially one manifestation of the hydrogen economy, was rejected for ambiguity since the Application’s use of the term “water… inputs” as claimed was not supported by the description. Water is only ever described as taking part in intermediary steps in the claimed method, not as an energy input, as in hydroelectric power.
Lundbeck Canada Inc v Canada (Health), 2014 FC 1049 - How should overlapping expert costs be allocated? Three parties each sought a Notice of Compliance (NOC) for the same drug, and the innovator relied on much the same expert evidence in each proceeding but costs were not precisely allocated among the three proceedings.
Flat-out ignoring patents and SRED can result in leaving a lot of value on the table. Whatever one may think of patents, it is a fact that they can provide enormous value to a technology company if they are done correctly. By the same token, a successful SRED claim can lead to a significant short term financial boost for cash conscious companies.
Beginning May 13, 2015, U.S. entities will be able to file a single international application in a single language to obtain protection for up to 100 industrial designs in over 64 territories. Canadians with U.S. relations may be able to participate.
From May 8, 2015 through May 22, 2015, Google will be accepting applications from patent-holders wishing to sell any patent to Google through its experimental Patent Purchase Program. Google hopes that its program will improve the marketplace for patents for everyone, but especially for smaller participants, who too often end up selling their patents to patent trolls.
Wolfe v Shawcor Ltd, 2015 ABQB 181 - The Alberta Court determined that a corporation that assigned all of its confidential intellectual property has no standing to sue for breach of that confidential information.
Newco Tank Corp v Canada (Attorney General) 2015 FCA 47 - The Board made a reasonable factual finding when it found that the background knowledge of the person skilled in the art was described in the background information of a patent. This determination was instrumental in the Board’s determination that the patent was obvious.
Why is it that worldwide rankings of startup hubs group together a handful of population centres in Silicon Valley amounting to almost 7.5 million people, but Waterloo and Toronto, with only 124,600 and 5.8 million people respectively, and with equally as much mixing of talent between them, are always ranked separately and pitted against each other as competitors? Toronto and Waterloo are producing some of the most innovative new companies of the future. Fostering talent in both regions and bringing great ideas and great minds together can only work to our mutual benefit and ability to tackle the world scene. Geography should be no object.
Eli Lilly Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2015 FC 178 - Mylan did not infringe the ‘948 Patent because the Mylan’s tadalafil compound did not have the claimed particle size distribution and the formulation did not contain the claimed concentration of hydrophilic binder. The Court rejected two purposive arguments by Eli Lilly in favour of a more literal reading of the patent.
The Catalyst Capital Group Inc v Moyse, 2014 ONSC 6442 - An injunction was ordered to prevent Brandon Moyse from working at and divulging confidential information to a competing investment firm, citing Moyse's disregard for and understanding of confidential information when he sent confidential memos to the competing firm as a writing sample pursuant to a job application.