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.
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.
Newco Tank Corp v Canada (Attorney General) 2015 FCA 47 - The Board made a reasonable factual finding when it found that the background knowledge of the person skilled in the art was described in the background information of a patent. This determination was instrumental in the Board’s determination that the patent was obvious.
Eli Lilly Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2015 FC 178 - Mylan did not infringe the ‘948 Patent because the Mylan’s tadalafil compound did not have the claimed particle size distribution and the formulation did not contain the claimed concentration of hydrophilic binder. The Court rejected two purposive arguments by Eli Lilly in favour of a more literal reading of the patent.
The Catalyst Capital Group Inc v Moyse, 2014 ONSC 6442 - An injunction was ordered to prevent Brandon Moyse from working at and divulging confidential information to a competing investment firm, citing Moyse's disregard for and understanding of confidential information when he sent confidential memos to the competing firm as a writing sample pursuant to a job application.
Alcon Canada Inc v Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company, 2014 FC 149 - The Court examined in detail a number of experiments disclosed in the patent that were said to establish the claimed utility, but the experiments did not demonstrate or soundly predict utility for the broad ranges of molecular weight and chemical concentration claimed.
Eli Lilly Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 152 - This decision clearly states that a higher level of specificity is required to adhere to the Regulations than is required for an element to be claimed as a matter of claim construction.