PAB 1393 - The Patent Appeal Board found that Canadian Patent Application No. 2,544,223, entitled “Stabilized Alpha Helical Peptides and Uses Thereof” lacked utility, lacked sufficient disclosure, was obvious, and included indefinite claims.
2016 FC 435 - In this industrial design case, the FC commented that the more crowded the field, the smaller the degree of difference required to evade the protection afforded by existing registrations.
2015 FC 108 - Patent drafters are required to provide adequate disclosure of an invention in patent applications to reduce the likelihood that the granted patent will be litigated and invalidated years down the road. This Federal Court (“FC”) decision dismissed an application for a prohibition order on the grounds of non-infringement and found the patent to be obvious and lacking in utility.
PAB 1392 - Patent applicants should be wary of relying solely on evidence of commercial success to avoid rejection on the grounds of obviousness, as factors such as marketing may be found to be the actual reason for the success.
2015 FC 247 - The Federal Court reminds us that a selection patent will typically require something more than routine testing to justify the reclaiming of a particular compound within a previously known class of compounds.
The ITC finally dropped its investigation against the dental equipment manufacturer ClearCorrect. The move comes long after the ITC lost a legal battle that decided that the ITC does not have the power to police the importation of digital data, even where that digital data is being used to 3D-print a patented product in the United States.
2016 FCA 119 - The FCA dismissed the appeal, which alleged that Canadian Patent No. 2,226,784 was invalid on the basis of obviousness-type double-patenting and for lack of utility due to no sound prediction. As a result, the ‘784 patent was upheld.
2014 FCA 68 - Innovator pharmaceutical companies should be cautious and think twice about how aggressively they defend their patents as they could potentially face paying more than 100% of actual damages as an award under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations.
PAB 1408 - The Canadian version of one of the computer-implemented financial services patent applications from the famous U.S. case on software patent eligibility, Alice Corp v CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), was rejected for lack of patentable subject matter.
2016 FCA 215 - The FCA has held that the standard of review applicable to discretionary orders made by prothonotaries that was enunciated in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. should be abandoned and replaced withthe standard that was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Housen v. Nikolaisen.
2015 FCA 191 - The FCA dismissed an appeal wherein Alcon sought to reverse a finding of invalidity against its patent by surreptitiously asking the FCA to reweigh the evidence as a challenge against the Federal Court Judge’s findings of fact and preferred expert evidence.
2016 FCA 230 - The FCA found that the EXJADE patent was drafted so as to make an important distinction between the utilities of the Formula I and Formula II compounds, and thereby held the Formula II claims to a lesser promise, and dismissed Teva’s allegations of inutility.
PAB 1407 - The PAB rejected the computer-implemented data analytics patent application of Canadian Patent Application No. 2,798,566, entitled “Identified Customer Reporting”, for lack of statutory subject matter, since no physical feature – no computing device – was found to be essential to the claims.
In Re Smith, (Fed. Cir. 2015-1664) - A patent application for a variation on the blackjack game was rejected as unpatentable after the CAFC applied the two-step test for patentable subject matter from Mayo and Alice.
2015 FCA 163 - In the obviousness analysis and determining whether a person skilled in the art would have discovered the prior art, the FCA upheld the application of a reasonably diligent search standard.
2016 FC 830 - The FC dismissed a case of contractual dispute over the ownership of a patent, and commented that, regardless of whether conflict of laws principles apply, no assignment or transfer of a patent can take place except in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the patent was granted (s. 51 of the Patent Act).