Summary

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 22, 2015

Determining the Common General Knowledge from the Background of a Patent Upheld as a Reasonable Factual Finding

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.
March 24, 2015

Mylan-Tadalafil does not Infringe Eli Lilly’s Formulation Patent in NOC Proceeding

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.
March 16, 2015

Catalyst gets an Injunction against a Departing Employee for Inequitable Disregard for Confidential Information

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.
March 3, 2015

Physical Stability Experiments did not Adequately Demonstrate or Soundly Predict Utility for Overbroad Eye Drop Patent

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.
February 25, 2015

Federal Court Upholds Gap between Claim Construction and PM(NOC) Product Specificity Requirement for Combination Drugs

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.
February 23, 2015

United States Supreme Court Clarifies that Claim Construction can Involve Subsidiary Factual Disputes that are Reviewed on a Clear Error Standard

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, et al v Sandoz, Inc, et al, 574 US __ (2015) - United States Supreme Court clarified that claim construction can involve subsidiary factual disputes that are reviewed on a clear error standard, while the ultimate question of claim construction is reviewed de novo.
February 11, 2015

Receiving Copyrighted Material Considered a Presumptive Connecting Factor in Seismic Data Dispute

Geophysical Service Incorporated v Arcis Seismic Solutions Corp, 2015 ABQB 88 - The Court analogized misuse of confidential information to copyright infringement to decide that the jurisdiction where the copyright-infringing material was received was also significant.
February 5, 2015

Federal Court Reverses Commissioner’s Opinion that Janssen Altered the Prohibition against Patenting of Methods of Medical Treatment

AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 1251 - The core of the Commissioner’s argument was that Janssen Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2010 FC 1123, broadened the prohibition against patents on methods of medical treatment to include generally claims which restrict the “how and when” a physician could administer a particular drug. The Court found that the Commissioner had misread Janssen.
February 3, 2015

ONCA Preserves Protection of Discussions between Expert Witnesses and Lawyers

Moore v Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55 - The Court referred to UK authorities that described patent law as an example of a highly technical area where “expert witnesses require a high level of instruction by the lawyers”, supposedly to liken the highly technical area of patent law to the highly technical area of medical malpractice with respect to its reliance on expert evidence.