2016 ONCA 217 - The ONCA accepted the motion judge’s interpretation of the licensing agreement at issue, however, it set aside the dismissal of Symcor's defence of estoppel and referred this issue, along with a limitation period defence and assessment of damages, to trial.
2016 FC 517 - The FC held that patent applicants and holders using Xpresspost(TM) need only submit correspondence for CIPO to a Canada Post location by the deadline, rather than ensure physical delivery is completed by the deadline. The decision saved Biogen’s response to a requisition in a conflict proceeding from being deemed abandoned.
2016 FC 336 - The FC affirmed Prothonotary Tabib’s decision to strike some of Gilead Science's pleadings and allow the infringement action to continue on the basis of amended allegations of a likely future (quia timet) infringement.
2016 ONSC 7193 - The ONSC heard pleadings by Apotex and Pfizer concerning Pfizer’s, now invalid, patent for Viagra. Apotex had previously been prevented from manufacturing its own generic because of the Viagra patent, and now claimed damages for the delay in being able to market its own variant. The appeal was dismissed and Apotex’s claim was allowed to proceed unstruck.
2015 BCCA 506 - This BCCA decision confirmed that the patent regulatory regime – that being the Patent Act, the Patent Rules, the Food and Drugs Act, the Food and Drug Regulations, and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, is a complete code which forecloses parallel civil actions rooted in a breach of the Patent Act.
PAB 1393 - The Patent Appeal Board found that Canadian Patent Application No. 2,544,223, entitled “Stabilized Alpha Helical Peptides and Uses Thereof” lacked utility, lacked sufficient disclosure, was obvious, and included indefinite claims.
2016 FC 435 - In this industrial design case, the FC commented that the more crowded the field, the smaller the degree of difference required to evade the protection afforded by existing registrations.
2015 FC 108 - Patent drafters are required to provide adequate disclosure of an invention in patent applications to reduce the likelihood that the granted patent will be litigated and invalidated years down the road. This Federal Court (“FC”) decision dismissed an application for a prohibition order on the grounds of non-infringement and found the patent to be obvious and lacking in utility.
PAB 1392 - Patent applicants should be wary of relying solely on evidence of commercial success to avoid rejection on the grounds of obviousness, as factors such as marketing may be found to be the actual reason for the success.