Case summaries and articles about patent infringement.
- Filter by
- Categories
- Tags
- Show all
- Article
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Corporate
- Domain Names
- Employment
- Expungement
- Expungement
- Grey Marketing
- Industrial Designs
- Licensing
- Obviousness
- Opposition
- Passing Off
- Patent
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Strategy
- PCK News
- PM(NOC)
- Procedure
- Prosecution
- Services
- Summary
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Use
- Validity
- Abandonment
- Abstract Theorems
- Abuse of Process
- Accounting of Profits
- Alice/Mayo Test
- Ambiguity
- Anticipation
- Appeal
- Apple
- Artificial Intelligence
- Assignment
- Bargain Theory
- Biosimilar
- Biotech Patents
- Branding
- business
- CAFC
- Canada
- Certificate of Supplementary Protection
- Chemical Patent
- CIPO
- claim
- Claim Construction
- Class Actions
- College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
- combination drugs
- Commercial Success
- Common General Knowledge
- Confidential Information
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Costs
- Counterfeit
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- COVID-19
- Damages
- Data Protection
- Design Patents
- Distinctiveness
- Diversity
- DNA Patents
- Domain Names
- Dosage Range
- Double Patenting
- Due Care
- E-Commerce
- Enablement
- Estoppel
- Evidence
- Expert Evidence
- Fair Use
- Federal Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- File Wrapper Estoppel
- Food and Drug Regulations
- Fraud
- funding
- Generic Drugs
- Hague Agreement
- Indefiniteness
- Induced Infringement
- Industrial Designs
- Injunction
- Innovation
- Innovative Drugs
- Insufficient Disclosure
- Intellectual Property
- Inter Partes Review
- Investors
- IP Litigation
- IP Strategy
- IP Treaty
- IPIC
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm
- Licensing IP
- Madrid Protocol
- Methods of Medical Treatment
- Non-Infringing Alternative
- Non-Practicing Entity
- Novelty
- Obviousness
- Official Marks
- On-Sale Bar
- Overbreadth
- Ownership & Inventorship
- Passing Off
- Patent Act
- Patent Agent
- Patent Appeal Board
- Patent Application
- Patent Drafting
- Patent Fees
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Law
- Patent Lawyer
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Rules
- Patent Strategy
- Patent Term Adjustment
- Patent Textbook
- Patent Trolls
- Patent Validity
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Patents
- PCT
- Pharmaceutical Patent
- Pharmaceutical Pricing
- PM(NOC)
- PMPRB
- Prior Art
- Prior Disclosure
- prior use
- Priority
- Privilege
- Product Specificity
- Promise Doctrine
- Provisional Patent
- Punitive Damages
- Reinstatement
- Remedies
- SCOTUS
- Selection Patent
- Software
- Software Copyright
- Software Patent
- Sound Prediction
- Springboard Profits
- SRED
- Standard of Review
- Start-up
- Startups
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Technology
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Trademark Agent
- Trademark Expungement
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Law
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Registration
- Trademarks Act
- United States
- Use
- USPTO
- Utility
August 1, 2017
August 1, 2017
2016 FC 1117 - Cascade brought a claim that Kinshofer had infringed its Canadian patent related to a safety locking device for quick couplers. After carrying out a claim construction, the FC did not find that the patent had been infringed.
July 18, 2017
July 18, 2017
2016 FC 606 - The FC dismissed TearLab’s application for an interlocutory injunction preventing I-MED from selling its i-Pen System, and ordered TearLab to pay security for costs.
July 11, 2017
July 11, 2017
2017 SCC 34 - Canada's Supreme Court dismissed Google Inc.’s appeal and upheld the worldwide interlocutory injunction against it.
June 20, 2017
June 20, 2017
2016 FC 1279 - The FC found that API violated section 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act by making false or misleading statements tending to discredit the business, goods, or services of Excalibre, when it sent cease and desist letters to some of Excalibre’s customers.
June 13, 2017
June 13, 2017
2016 FC 382 - The FC concluded that Apotex’s allegations of non-infringement in respect of Shire's Canadian Patent were justified and accordingly denied Shire’s requested prohibition order.
May 30, 2017
May 30, 2017
2016 FCA 155 - The FCA overturned a FC decision in which it was held that the parties had settled the litigation, and had issued an order enforcing the terms of the settlement. The FCA found that a settlement had not in fact been reached, set aside the FC’s order and granted Apotex its appeal and costs.
May 23, 2017
May 23, 2017
581 U.S. ___ (2017) - SCOTUS reaffirmed one of its previous holdings to find that the proper venue for bringing a patent infringement suit against a domestic corporation is either where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular place of business.
May 16, 2017
May 16, 2017
2017 FC 350 - The Federal Court outlined in this decision how the Dow Chemical Company should be compensated by Nova Chemicals Corporation for its infringement of Dow’s patent.
May 2, 2017
May 2, 2017
2017 FCA 9 - The FCA affirmed the FC decision that AstraZeneca’s patent was valid and infringed, accepted Apotex’s appeal with respects to limitation periods, and rejected AstraZeneca’s cross-appeal regarding punitive damages.
April 25, 2017
April 25, 2017
2016 FC 593 - The FC awarded Janssen Canada and Janssen US almost $19 million in total damages for Teva's infringement of a Japanese entity's patent, for which Janssen US had never even exercised its licence in Canada.
April 11, 2017
April 11, 2017
2016 FC 320 - The FC found that many of the claims in Uponor’s patent were invalid, rejected the untrue material allegation argument and found that several of the remaining claims were infringed by Heatlink and Pexcor.
April 4, 2017
April 4, 2017
2017 FCA 23 - The FCA found that the FC had erred by rejecting the relevance of non-infringing alternatives available to Apotex, so as to reduce the accounting of profits award to ADIR for infringement of its patent. The single issue was remitted back to the FC.
March 28, 2017
March 28, 2017
2017 FCA 25 - The FCA dismissed Nova’s appeal of a FC judgment, which awarded Dow $6.5 million for costs in their successful action for patent infringement.
March 14, 2017
March 14, 2017
2015 FC 1237 - The FC heard and granted an application by Leo Pharma to prohibit Teva Canada from being issued a Notice of Compliance under the PM(NOC) Regulations.
February 7, 2017
February 7, 2017
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.
February 3, 2017
February 3, 2017
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.
January 23, 2017
January 23, 2017
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.
December 20, 2016
December 20, 2016
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.
August 22, 2016
August 22, 2016
2016 FC 720 - The FC bifurcated the issues of infringement and validity from any other section 8 issue in hopes that bifurcation would likely lead to a settlement of all the issues between the parties.
August 19, 2016
August 19, 2016
(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.