- 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
- PCK News
- PM(NOC)
- Procedure
- Prosecution
- Services
- Summary
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Use
- Validity
- Abandonment
- Abstract Theorems
- Abuse of Process
- Accounting of Profits
- Alice/Mayo Test
- Ambiguity
- Anticipation
- Appeal
- Apple
- Artificial Intelligence
- Assignment
- Bargain Theory
- Biosimilar
- Biotech Patents
- Branding
- business
- CAFC
- Canada
- Certificate of Supplementary Protection
- Chemical Patent
- CIPO
- claim
- Claim Construction
- Class Actions
- College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
- combination drugs
- Commercial Success
- Common General Knowledge
- Confidential Information
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Costs
- Counterfeit
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- COVID-19
- Damages
- Data Protection
- Design Patents
- Distinctiveness
- Diversity
- DNA Patents
- Domain Names
- Dosage Range
- Double Patenting
- Due Care
- E-Commerce
- Enablement
- Estoppel
- Evidence
- Expert Evidence
- Fair Use
- Federal Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- File Wrapper Estoppel
- Food and Drug Regulations
- Fraud
- funding
- Generic Drugs
- Hague Agreement
- Indefiniteness
- Induced Infringement
- Industrial Designs
- Injunction
- Innovation
- Innovative Drugs
- Insufficient Disclosure
- Intellectual Property
- Inter Partes Review
- Investors
- IP Litigation
- IP Strategy
- IP Treaty
- IPIC
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm
- Licensing IP
- Madrid Protocol
- Methods of Medical Treatment
- Non-Infringing Alternative
- Non-Practicing Entity
- Novelty
- Obviousness
- Official Marks
- On-Sale Bar
- Overbreadth
- Ownership & Inventorship
- Passing Off
- Patent Act
- Patent Agent
- Patent Appeal Board
- Patent Application
- Patent Drafting
- Patent Fees
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Law
- Patent Lawyer
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Rules
- Patent Strategy
- Patent Term Adjustment
- Patent Textbook
- Patent Trolls
- Patent Validity
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Patents
- PCT
- Pharmaceutical Patent
- Pharmaceutical Pricing
- PM(NOC)
- PMPRB
- Prior Art
- Prior Disclosure
- prior use
- Priority
- Privilege
- Product Specificity
- Promise Doctrine
- Provisional Patent
- Punitive Damages
- Reinstatement
- Remedies
- SCOTUS
- Selection Patent
- Software
- Software Copyright
- Software Patent
- Sound Prediction
- Springboard Profits
- SRED
- Standard of Review
- Start-up
- Startups
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Technology
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Trademark Agent
- Trademark Expungement
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Law
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Registration
- Trademarks Act
- United States
- Use
- USPTO
- Utility
August 22, 2017
August 22, 2017
2016 FCA 161 - The FCA remitted a proceeding back to the FC for redetermination after agreeing with Pfizer that part of Teva’s evidence in the FC decision was based on hearsay.
August 1, 2017
August 1, 2017
2016 FC 1117 - Cascade brought a claim that Kinshofer had infringed its Canadian patent related to a safety locking device for quick couplers. After carrying out a claim construction, the FC did not find that the patent had been infringed.
July 25, 2017
July 25, 2017
Pollard Banknote Limited v Babn Technologies Corp, 2016 FC 1193 Poor conduct during patent litigation can result in significantly elevated costs awards, even if the conduct […]
July 18, 2017
July 18, 2017
2016 FC 606 - The FC dismissed TearLab’s application for an interlocutory injunction preventing I-MED from selling its i-Pen System, and ordered TearLab to pay security for costs.
July 11, 2017
July 11, 2017
2017 SCC 34 - Canada's Supreme Court dismissed Google Inc.’s appeal and upheld the worldwide interlocutory injunction against it.
June 20, 2017
June 20, 2017
2016 FC 1279 - The FC found that API violated section 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act by making false or misleading statements tending to discredit the business, goods, or services of Excalibre, when it sent cease and desist letters to some of Excalibre’s customers.
June 13, 2017
June 13, 2017
2016 FC 382 - The FC concluded that Apotex’s allegations of non-infringement in respect of Shire's Canadian Patent were justified and accordingly denied Shire’s requested prohibition order.
May 30, 2017
May 30, 2017
2016 FCA 155 - The FCA overturned a FC decision in which it was held that the parties had settled the litigation, and had issued an order enforcing the terms of the settlement. The FCA found that a settlement had not in fact been reached, set aside the FC’s order and granted Apotex its appeal and costs.
May 23, 2017
May 23, 2017
581 U.S. ___ (2017) - SCOTUS reaffirmed one of its previous holdings to find that the proper venue for bringing a patent infringement suit against a domestic corporation is either where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular place of business.
March 21, 2017
March 21, 2017
2016 ONSC 7201 - The ONSC found Bemco to be in breach of its settlement agreement with Mars, and found Mars entitled to summary judgment. The settlement agreement was in relation to Bemco grey marketing Mars' goods.
January 3, 2017
January 3, 2017
2015 FC 1016 - In this decision, the FC permitted the applicant to proceed with its prohibition application, despite a previous decision finding that the patent in question was invalid.
October 6, 2016
October 6, 2016
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.
October 6, 2016
October 6, 2016
2016 FC 318 - The Federal Court continues to demonstrate a high degree of deference owed to discretionary orders made by prothonotaries.
October 4, 2016
October 4, 2016
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.
October 3, 2016
October 3, 2016
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.
August 19, 2016
August 19, 2016
(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.
August 15, 2016
August 15, 2016
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.
August 8, 2016
August 8, 2016
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.
April 12, 2016
April 12, 2016
2015 FC 391 - The Federal Court recognized the increasing and improper use of the phrase "under advisement" in response to questions on examination for discovery.
February 3, 2015
February 3, 2015
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.