ADIR v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 721 - In an accounting of profits case, the FC stated that if a non-infringing alternative is to be considered, it “cannot be what one would have done had one complied with the law”.
AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 322 - Claim 1 was worded general enough to capture Apotex’s subcoating layer even though Apotex’s subcoating layer was generated by an in situ chemical reaction, a process that the patentee had not contemplated.
Microsoft Corporation v Proxyconn, Inc, - The “broadest reasonable interpretation standard” (“BRI”) standard is the standard for claim construction in Inter Partes Review IPR proceedings and newly substituted claims must be demonstrated to be patentable over the prior art of record.
Kimble et al v Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. ____ (2015) - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 50 year old rule from Brulotte v Thys Co, 379 US 29, that prohibits royalties from being charged on formerly patented products after the patent has expired.
Tan-Jen Ltd v Di Pede, 2015 ONSC 3685 - In a copyright infringement case regarding supposedly one-of-a-kind design moulds for a home's exterior, the Court allowed inspection of the property for valuation purposes and refused a request to keep the court proceedings closed from the public.
In the age of the “Lean Startup” $100,000 can be enough to get a startup well off the ground. However, with such tight budgets and limited funding there is often not much room left to pay a professional patent agent several thousand dollars to draft your patent application. This article provides some pointers on how to draft your own provisional software patent application.
Groves v Canasonics Inc, 2015 ABQB 314 - After a falling out between a director and Canasonics Inc., the former director sought to ensure that any intellectual property in critical unpatented tools remained his own, and sought to reverse the transfer of a number of patents that he had already assigned to the company.
Agros Trading Confectionery SPZOO v K-Max Corp, 2015 ONSC 3166 - This case is an example of one company, who was sued for trade-mark infringement, attempting to evade the court ruling by incorporating a new company to continue selling the infringing products. Even though the infringement was taking place under new companies, infringers were still bound by an injunction preventing them from selling the infringing goods.