Canadians demonstrate excellence at many things. There are the obvious clichés like maple syrup, hockey, politeness and modesty. However, our excellence at politeness hides some of our other impressive strengths, like innovation and technology. In turn, our modesty seems to keep Canadians from protecting their intellectual property (IP) at rates disproportionate to our OECD counterparts. I have been working in the intellectual property field for nearly twenty years and can share many anecdotes of Canadian companies that are world innovation leaders who, because of that charming modesty, essentially give away their intellectual property.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Atticus Canada Inc v Atticus Management LLC, 2014 TMOB 196 - Evidence of trade-mark use consisting of copies of license agreements allowing Atticus Capital LP to use the Mark was taken to demonstrate use in association with financial services generally, but not in association with investment advice.
Commissioner’s Decision # 1371 - The Commissioner refused to grant GlaxoSmithKline’s patent application for an “influenza vaccine formulation for intradermal delivery” due to obviousness since there was always a motivation to use the ID route, but it had always been impractical until the advent of a short needle device.
Google, Inc v Oracle America, Inc, 14-410 - This case would put at issue whether Java’s method headers are subject to copyright protection, or whether they are excluded by Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act for being a system or method of operation.