Kimble et al v Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. ____ (2015) - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 50 year old rule from Brulotte v Thys Co, 379 US 29, that prohibits royalties from being charged on formerly patented products after the patent has expired.
Tan-Jen Ltd v Di Pede, 2015 ONSC 3685 - In a copyright infringement case regarding supposedly one-of-a-kind design moulds for a home's exterior, the Court allowed inspection of the property for valuation purposes and refused a request to keep the court proceedings closed from the public.
Groves v Canasonics Inc, 2015 ABQB 314 - After a falling out between a director and Canasonics Inc., the former director sought to ensure that any intellectual property in critical unpatented tools remained his own, and sought to reverse the transfer of a number of patents that he had already assigned to the company.
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.
Jamieson Laboratories Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 2015 FCA 104 - The FCA upheld an interlocutory injunction preventing Jamieson Laboratories Ltd. from selling its omega-3 fatty acid supplements under the name “OMEGARED”. The injunction was awarded largely because of the finding that Jamieson had strategically rebranded its product line from “Super Krill” To “Omega Red” in order to frustrate the entrance of Reckitt’s “MEGARED” product line into the Canadian market.
Imperial Manufacturing Group Inc v Decor Grates Incorporated, 2015 FCA 100 - Faced with the rebuttable presumption that Decor was the proprietor of the industrial design, it was on the plaintiff to adduce evidence to the contrary, not to fish for the supporting facts from Decor during pleadings.
ViiV Healthcare ULC v Teva Canada Limited, 2015 FCA 93 - The FCA confirmed that paragraph 4(2)(a) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance Regulations) requires that a patent listed on the register requires an “exacting threshold of specificity” between what is claimed in the patent and what has been approved in the Notice of Compliance. However, proposed amendments to the PM(NOC) Regulations would reverse this holding.
Commissioner’s Decision #1376 - The Application, which sought to patent what is essentially one manifestation of the hydrogen economy, was rejected for ambiguity since the Application’s use of the term “water… inputs” as claimed was not supported by the description. Water is only ever described as taking part in intermediary steps in the claimed method, not as an energy input, as in hydroelectric power.
Lundbeck Canada Inc v Canada (Health), 2014 FC 1049 - How should overlapping expert costs be allocated? Three parties each sought a Notice of Compliance (NOC) for the same drug, and the innovator relied on much the same expert evidence in each proceeding but costs were not precisely allocated among the three proceedings.