Corporate Archives

May 28, 2019

A judge's gavel in front of the UK national flag

May 28, 2019

PCK IP Lawyers Instrumental in Client’s Defense of Patent Ownership

PCK IP Lawyers LLP represented Netsweeper in patent ownership dispute against Prosyscor in which Netsweeper was successful.

September 22, 2015

Crafting a Suitable IP Strategy – Tips from the Pros!

Many startups are basing their business plans and valuations on their innovation; patents and industrial designs can be the most valuable asset of the company. One of the best strategies to secure protection for your innovation involves the filing of a self-written provisional patent application. On October 21, beginning at 5 p.m., PCK will be providing a hands-on session in which founders can learn the basics of patents from Andrew Currier.

June 29, 2015

Corporate Restructuring Fails to Avoid Injunction for Trade-mark Infringement

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.

April 25, 2015

A Corporation that Assigned all of its Confidential Intellectual Property has no Standing to Sue for Breach of that Confidential Information

Wolfe v Shawcor Ltd, 2015 ABQB 181 - The Alberta Court determined that a corporation that assigned all of its confidential intellectual property has no standing to sue for breach of that confidential information.

April 15, 2014

Federal Court Dismisses Bell’s Motion to Disqualify the Law Firm of Bereskin and Parr in Patent Infringement Action

Mediatube Corp. and Northvu Inc v Bell Canada et al, 2014 FC 237 - The Court dismissed a motion to remove Bereskin & Parr as solicitors of record for Mediatube for a conflict of interest, finding that “[w]hile there may be some circumstances where related companies could be considered as one entity and one client, the circumstances in the present case do not lead to that conclusion.”