2017 FCA 225 - Federal Court of Appeal upheld the trial level decision invalidating Ciba's Canadian patent for obviousness, and elaborated on the obviousness inquiry, endorsing an approach that focuses on construing the claims rather than identifying the inventive concept.
PAB 1420 - Canadian Patent Application No. 2,529,210 filed by Assurant Inc. for a system that routes customer calls based on a sales agent’s past performance was rejected by the Patent Appeal Board, at least for the reasons of non-statutory subject matter and obviousness.
2017 FC 777 - The FC rejected Teva’s allegations that Pfizer's Canadian patent was obvious and lacked utility. The FC found that the POSITA would not have been able to predict the novel crystalline form taught by the patent, and that the subject-matter of the invention claimed in the patent was useful.
2017 FC 774 - The FC granted Pfizer's order pursuant to Section 6 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a NOC to Apotex, with respect to a Canadian patent The FC found, on a balance of probabilities, that Apotex’s allegations of obviousness, inutility, non-infringement, overpromising, anticipation and double patenting were not justified.
2016 FCA 267 - Apotex unsuccessfully sought to show that the FCA had erred in another decision by not following the SCC's decision in Whirlpool. Apotex also unsuccessfully argued that the FC had erred by finding the tadalafil patent to have sufficient disclosure.
PAB 1394 - The Patent Appeal Board rejected the “Home Health Point-Of-Care and Administration System” disclosed in Canadian Patent Application No. 2,579,081 for being obvious to a person skilled in the art.
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.
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.