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).
2016 FC 720 - The FC bifurcated the issues of infringement and validity from any other section 8 issue in hopes that bifurcation would likely lead to a settlement of all the issues between the parties.
(No. 14-1802 Fed. Cir.) - The CAFC held that a patentee does not have to prove that the infringing features of a competitor’s product were the exclusive or predominant reason why consumers bought the competitor’s product to obtain an injunction for patent infringement. Rather, it is sufficient to prove that there was some connection between the infringing features and the demand for the competitor’s product.
2015 ONSC 7980 - The SCJ decided that the legal tests and the remedies available in a defamation action and an action for false and misleading statements under the Trade-marks Act are different enough that a stay of proceeding to block one action before the conclusion of the other should be denied.
2016 FC 883 - The Federal Court followed the longstanding rule against the use of patent prosecution file history in interpreting the claims of a patent, but made a strong case for why the patent prosecution file history is worth considering, as is common practice in the U.S.
In U.S. patent infringement, the “actual notice” requirement in 35 USC § 154(d) requires actual knowledge of a published patent application. Knowledge of related patents, even those sharing a description, and indirect references to a published patent application in emails may not be sufficient to prove actual notice.