(No. 14-1802 Fed. Cir.) - The CAFC held that a patentee does not have to prove that the infringing features of a competitor’s product were the exclusive or predominant reason why consumers bought the competitor’s product to obtain an injunction for patent infringement. Rather, it is sufficient to prove that there was some connection between the infringing features and the demand for the competitor’s product.
2015 ONSC 7980 - The SCJ decided that the legal tests and the remedies available in a defamation action and an action for false and misleading statements under the Trade-marks Act are different enough that a stay of proceeding to block one action before the conclusion of the other should be denied.
2016 FC 883 - The Federal Court followed the longstanding rule against the use of patent prosecution file history in interpreting the claims of a patent, but made a strong case for why the patent prosecution file history is worth considering, as is common practice in the U.S.
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.