Obviousness
February 3, 2022
Canada's Federal Court dismissed allegations by Paid Search Engine that Google infringed a patent for optimizing paid search engines.
January 24, 2022
Outside Canada, Teva’s Copaxone® 40mg/mL dosing patents have been invalidated for obviousness, making way for generic competitors.
November 16, 2020
2020 FC 997: In a summary judgement for patent impeachment, Canada's Federal Court found a patent for heating hydraulic booms to be invalid for obviousness.
September 10, 2020
Fed. Cir. 2019-1622: The CAFC found the same preamble created different limitations for different patents, limiting one patent but not the other.
June 18, 2020
In a patent infringement case between two major ice skate manufacturers, the Federal Court clarified s. 53.1 and the admissibility of prosecution history.
April 16, 2020
Fed. Cir. 2018-2097 — The CAFC ruled that Valeant's patent for Relistor(R) is prima facie obvious based on similar compounds with overlapping pH ranges.
March 9, 2020
2020 FCA 30; 2020 FCA 31 – Janssen and Celltrion will return to court in June after the FCA overturned a lower court decision regarding a Remicade patent.
September 20, 2019
CAFC 2018-2207 – The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that “wherein” clauses in patent claims can be limiting if they are material to patentability.
September 13, 2019
2019 FC 1065 – Canada's Federal Court ruled that two fiber optics patents were obvious in light of an admission made in the background sections.
July 2, 2019
CAFC confirms that an invention is only obvious and ineligible for a patent where a skilled person would have had a “reasonable expectation of success.”