Obviousness

November 23, 2018
patent rules

PAB Rejects Application: Ambiguous and Indefinite Claims are Unpatentable

PAB 1453 – The Patent Appeal Board found that Canadian Patent Application No. 2,612,950 for a “system and method for generating real-time indicators in a trading list or portfolio” was obvious, the claims did not define statutory subject matter and were indefinite.
November 7, 2018
patent rules

US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Confirms Test for Obviousness

Fed. Cir. 2017-1977 – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirms the legal standard for obviousness in patent law.
July 10, 2018
patent rules

Federal Court of Appeal Provides Further Guidance on Obviousness

2017 FCA 225 - Federal Court of Appeal upheld the trial level decision invalidating Ciba's Canadian patent for obviousness, and elaborated on the obviousness inquiry, endorsing an approach that focuses on construing the claims rather than identifying the inventive concept.
January 9, 2018
subject matter

Call Processing System Patent Rejected for Lack of Statutory Subject Matter and Obviousness

PAB 1420 - Canadian Patent Application No. 2,529,210 filed by Assurant Inc. for a system that routes customer calls based on a sales agent’s past performance was rejected by the Patent Appeal Board, at least for the reasons of non-statutory subject matter and obviousness.
December 19, 2017
patent rules

Federal Court Upholds Pfizer’s Polymorph Patent for the Depression Drug PRISTIQ as Inventive and Useful

2017 FC 777 - The FC rejected Teva’s allegations that Pfizer's Canadian patent was obvious and lacked utility. The FC found that the POSITA would not have been able to predict the novel crystalline form taught by the patent, and that the subject-matter of the invention claimed in the patent was useful.
December 12, 2017
patent rules

Federal Court shoots down an attempted revival of the promise doctrine

2017 FC 774 - The FC granted Pfizer's order pursuant to Section 6 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a NOC to Apotex, with respect to a Canadian patent The FC found, on a balance of probabilities, that Apotex’s allegations of obviousness, inutility, non-infringement, overpromising, anticipation and double patenting were not justified.
November 7, 2017
tadalafil

Apotex Fails to Change FCA’s Opinion in Tadalafil Case

2016 FCA 267 - Apotex unsuccessfully sought to show that the FCA had erred in another decision by not following the SCC's decision in Whirlpool. Apotex also unsuccessfully argued that the FC had erred by finding the tadalafil patent to have sufficient disclosure.
June 6, 2017

Allergan fails to demonstrate to FC that Apotex’s allegations of invalidity are not justified

2016 FC 344 - Apotex alleged in its Notice of Allegation and submissions that the ‘632 Patent was invalid because it was obvious and lacked utility. The FC found that the allegation was justified.
March 14, 2017

Federal Court Grants Prohibition Order on Generic Psoriasis-treating Ointment

2015 FC 1237 - The FC heard and granted an application by Leo Pharma to prohibit Teva Canada from being issued a Notice of Compliance under the PM(NOC) Regulations.
February 28, 2017

Patent Appeal Board Rejects Home Healthcare Administration System for Obviousness

PAB 1394 - The Patent Appeal Board rejected the “Home Health Point-Of-Care and Administration System” disclosed in Canadian Patent Application No. 2,579,081 for being obvious to a person skilled in the art.