Insufficient Disclosure

August 18, 2022
A thermometer is shown on a pile of pharmaceutical pills.
August 18, 2022

Selection Patent for Apixaban Upheld by Federal Court of Appeal

2022 FCA 142: The Court also commented on the relevant date for determining if an invention has been sufficiently described in the patent application.
Read more
February 3, 2022
A photo of an iPhone screen showing an icon to launch the Google app.
February 3, 2022

Google’s AdWords Defeats Competitor’s Patent Infringement Claim

Canada's Federal Court dismissed allegations by Paid Search Engine that Google infringed a patent for optimizing paid search engines.
Read more
December 2, 2020
Close-up photograph of a fountain pen writing words in ink on paper.
December 2, 2020

Written Description Particularly Important if Amending Claims in Response to Competitor

Fed. Cir. 2018-1779: A patent for testing fetal DNA was found to be unpatentable because the claims were not fully supported by the written description.
Read more
December 18, 2018
December 18, 2018

FCA Reviews Doctrines of Claim Construction and Sufficient Disclosure

2018 FCA 172 – FCA affirms FC’s analysis on sufficient disclosure but quashes claim construction analysis.
Read more
October 10, 2017
insufficient disclosure
October 10, 2017

Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Finding of Insufficient Disclosure

2017 FCA 161 - The FCA dismissed Idenix's appeal to a FC decision in which Idenix's Canadian patent was found invalid for insufficient disclosure and its counterclaim against Gilead was dismissed.
Read more
April 22, 2016
April 22, 2016

Federal Court Finds “Rigidification” Patent to be Sufficient but Obvious

2015 FC 997 - The FC found that the invention was merely to add a polymer to the slurry, which was known in the prior art, and to continue to do so until the slurry rigidified. The Court found this solution to be obvious to try, and sufficiently disclosed, even though the meaning of “rigidify” was never made clear.
Read more
October 27, 2014
October 27, 2014

Expert witnesses proven to be pivotal in Dow Chemical patent infringement suit

Dow Chemical Co v NOVA Chemicals Corp, 2014 FC 844 - The Federal Court found that NOVA Chemicals infringed Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705, owned by The Dow Chemical Company, by NOVA’s use of its “SURPASS” polyethylene product. Allegations of invalidity for lack of utility, claims broader than any invention made or disclosed, anticipation, obviousness, double patenting, and insufficiency of the specification were unsuccessful.
Read more
March 26, 2013
March 26, 2013

Hughes J. Holds the Relevant Date for Assessing Sufficiency of a Canadian Patent Is the Date of Publication

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited, 2013 FC 283 Novartis brought two applications under the provisions of the PM(NOC) Regulations to restrain the Minister […]
Read more
February 11, 2013
February 11, 2013

PM(NOC): Notice of Allegation Against the LYRICA Patent Upheld on Grounds of Insufficiency and Inutility for Lack of Sound Prediction

Pfizer Canada et al. v. Pharmascience Inc., 2013 FC 120 Pfizer brought an application under the PM(NOC) Regulations to prohibit the Minister of Health from issuing […]
Read more