- Filter by
- Categories
- Tags
- Show all
- Article
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Corporate
- Domain Names
- Employment
- Expungement
- Expungement
- Grey Marketing
- Industrial Designs
- Licensing
- Obviousness
- Opposition
- Passing Off
- Patent
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Strategy
- PM(NOC)
- Procedure
- Prosecution
- recognition
- Services
- Summary
- Trade Secrets
- Trade-mark
- Use
- Validity
- 35 US Code §101
- 3D printing
- Abandonment
- abstract theorems
- Abuse of Process
- Accounting of Profits
- acquired distinctiveness
- actions
- actual notice
- agreement
- Alice/Mayo Test
- Ambiguity
- Amendments
- Anticipation
- Appeal
- Apple
- application
- application fee
- arbitrary
- arbitration
- Artificial Intelligence
- Assignment
- Australia
- Bad Faith
- Bargain Theory
- Bill C-31
- Bill C-43
- Bill C-8
- Bill C-86
- Biologics
- biosimilar
- Biotech Patents
- Blockchain
- border measures
- Brand
- broadcasting
- budget
- burden of proof
- business
- CAFC
- Canada
- Canada Gazette
- Cannabis Law
- causal link
- cdrp
- CEEO
- Certificate of Supplementary Protection
- champerty
- Chemical Patent
- chemistry
- ciba
- CIPO
- CIPO errors
- CIRA
- Claim Construction
- Class Actions
- clerical error
- collateral estoppel
- College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
- combination drugs
- commissioner
- Common General Knowledge
- Complete Code
- Confidential Information
- confidentiality
- confidentiality order
- Conflict of Interest
- Confusion
- Constitution
- consumer goods
- contract
- contributory infringement
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- copyright test
- corrections
- Costs
- counterfeit
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- COVID-19
- CSP
- cybersecurity
- Damages
- Data
- Data Protection
- deadline
- defamation
- defences
- Delay to Market Entry
- descriptive
- Design Patents
- deviation
- digital infringement
- disclosure
- Discovery
- Distinctiveness
- Diversity
- division of powers
- divisionals
- DNA Patents
- domain names
- dominant feature
- Dosage Range
- Double Patenting
- doubtful cases
- Due Care
- Duty of Candor
- E-Commerce
- Early dismissal
- economics
- Employment
- errors
- essentiality of elements
- Ethics
- Europe
- Events
- Evidence
- examination quality
- examination statistics
- Examiner
- Expedited Examination
- Expert Blinding
- Expert Evidence
- expiry
- Expungement
- extraterritoriality
- Fair Use
- federal circuit
- Federal Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- fees
- file wrapper
- Filing
- filing date
- filing fee
- financial services
- Food and Drug Regulations
- Foreign Filing License
- foreign issue estoppel
- forum selection
- fraud
- Free World Trust
- frivolous
- funding
- future infringement
- generics
- geographical indications
- Good Faith
- goods
- Government
- Grace Period
- grey marketing
- Hague
- Hatch-Waxman
- Health Canada
- Hearsay
- Honest Contractual Performance
- ICSID
- Illegality
- Improver
- Indefiniteness
- Inducement
- Industrial Designs
- inherent distinctiveness
- Injunction
- Injunctions
- Innovation
- Innovative Drugs
- Insufficient Disclosure
- Intellectual Property
- intent
- Inter Partes Review
- interlocutory injunction
- Internet
- Internship
- intra vires
- Investors
- IP Lawyer
- IP Strategy
- IPIC
- IPO
- ISP
- IT patent
- ITC
- Jurisdiction
- Late fee
- Legal Retainer
- legal test
- Legislative Reform
- Liability
- Licensing
- life science
- limitation periods
- Litigation
- litigation funding agreement
- Madrid Protocol
- Maintenance Fee
- Marking Requirement
- materiality
- medical
- method
- Methods of Medical Treatment
- misleading
- motion
- Motion to dismiss
- Motion to strike
- NAFTA
- national phase entry
- Natural Health Product
- new evidence
- Non-Infringing Alternative
- Non-Practicing Entity
- notice of allegation
- notice to rectify
- Novelty
- obivous error
- Obviousness
- Official Marks
- On-Sale Bar
- ontario
- Overbreadth
- Ownership & Inventorship
- Passing Off
- Patent Act
- Patent Agents
- Patent Appeal Board
- Patent Application
- Patent Drafting
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Office
- patent office errors
- patent practicioner
- patent prosecution
- patent requirement
- Patent Rules
- Patent Strategy
- Patent Term Adjustment
- Patent Textbook
- Patent Trial and Appeal Board
- Patent Trolls
- patentability
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Patents
- PCT
- Pharmaceutical Patent
- Pharmaceutical Pricing
- PLT
- PM(NOC)
- PM(NOC) Damages
- PMPRB
- POSITA
- pride
- prior art
- Prior Disclosure
- prior use
- Priority
- Privilege
- procedure
- Product Specificity
- prohibited marks
- Promise Doctrine
- proprietor
- Prosecution
- Prosecution History
- protective order
- prothonotaries
- Provisional Patent
- public sale
- Public Servant
- Punitive Damages
- Recognition
- Records
- registration
- Reinstatement
- Reissue
- Remedies
- representation
- request for correction
- requisition
- responding
- review
- risk
- Royalties
- s. 27
- s. 45
- s. 53
- sale
- Scheduling
- Scholarship
- SCOTUS
- second person
- Secondary Infringement
- secondary meaning
- secret sale
- section 28
- Section 45
- section 50
- Section 52
- section 56
- section 7
- security
- Selection Patents
- Services
- settlement
- Site-Blocking Orders
- skilled person
- Software
- Software Copyright
- Software Patent
- Sound Prediction
- Specification
- sponsorship
- Springboard Profits
- SRED
- Standard of Proof
- Standard of Review
- Standard-Essential Patents
- standing
- standing to appeal
- Start-up
- Startups
- Statute of Monopolies
- stay
- Strategy
- Sufficiency
- Summary Judgment
- superior court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- surname
- Technology
- Telecommunications
- time frame
- TPP
- Trade Secrets
- Trade-Mark
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
- Trademarks Act
- treaty
- UK
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Use
- useful article
- USMCA
- USPTO
- Utility
- Validity
- Variant
- Varying records
- Velocity
- vexatious
- who's who legal
- Written Description
November 29, 2014
November 29, 2014
Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc, [2014] UKSC 55 - The UK Supreme Court rejected the argument that patent infringement could form the basis for the defence of illegality since patent rights do not give rise to the sort of public interest consideration that underpins the defence of illegality.