PCK Reporter

July 3, 2014

US Supreme Court Tightens the Standard for Definiteness of Patent Claims

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

US Supreme Court Reaffirms that Induced Infringement Requires Direct Infringement

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

Reciting a Generic Computer or Conventional Computer Implementation Not Sufficient to Render an Otherwise Abstract Idea Patent Eligible

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

Federal Court Grants Motion for Bifurcating Determination of Start of Liability Period under s. 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations

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

Federal Court Dismisses Bell’s Motion to Disqualify the Law Firm of Bereskin and Parr in Patent Infringement Action

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

Federal Court Upholds Case Management Prothonotary’s Order Regarding Trial Date

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

FCA Upholds Trial Court Ruling that Availability of Compensation under s. 8 of the NOC Regulations Is a Question of Fact

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

Quebec Court Holds Non-Agents May Draft Patents, But Must Disclose Their Inability to File and Prosecute and any Potential Patentability Issues

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

FCA Upholds Rejection of Sanofi’s Motion to Amend Its Statement of Defence

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

FCA Dismisses Pfizer’s Appeal Challenging Admissibility and Weight of Apotex Expert’s Testimony

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.