In U.S. patent infringement, the “actual notice” requirement in 35 USC § 154(d) requires actual knowledge of a published patent application. Knowledge of related patents, even those sharing a description, and indirect references to a published patent application in emails may not be sufficient to prove actual notice.
2015 FC 959 - The Health Minister denied data protection for Cysview after finding it was not an “innovative drug”, and the FC indicated the scope of “innovative drug” does not extend to combinations of the enumerated variations of previously approved medicinal ingredients in the Regulations (salt, ester, enantiomer, solvate or polymorph).
In the Enfish case, the Federal Circuit confirmed the patentability of a “self-referential” database invention as not being directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In the TLI Communications, the Federal Circuit found a proposed invention of classifying and storing digital images using a telephone unit to be abstract.
2015 FC 997 - The FC found that the invention was merely to add a polymer to the slurry, which was known in the prior art, and to continue to do so until the slurry rigidified. The Court found this solution to be obvious to try, and sufficiently disclosed, even though the meaning of “rigidify” was never made clear.
2015 FC 125 - The existing patent was invalid on the grounds of lack of utility for having made a promise of utility that could not be demonstrated nor soundly predicted, was anticipated by a previous patent of the applicant that claimed an overlapping dosage range, and was also therefore made obvious by the same previous patent.