Ownership & Inventorship
From the moment that an invention crystallizes in the mind of an inventor, an inchoate ownership right is created of which the inventor is the first owner. Anyone wishing to acquire that right must claim title through the inventor. The inventor is the person who conceives of a new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and reduces it to a definite and practical shape.
March 22, 2023
2023 FC 115: The Court found that the omission of the third inventor was a result of inadvertence, rather than delay, and allowed the correction.
September 30, 2022
If we reframe the question of “Should AI be named an inventor?” in the context of incentivizing innovation, we get a much more elegant question.
June 6, 2022
If an AI produces an invention which satisfies the requirements of patentability, who is the inventor—the creator of the AI or the AI itself?
January 13, 2022
Some of the most common errors made in patent applications are in the naming of applicants and inventors. If the mistake is not caught in time, it can cause a nasty headache for the patent owner.
August 18, 2021
The Australian Federal Court recently recognized that an artificial intelligence can be listed as an inventor under the Australian Patent Act.
March 26, 2021
2021 FC 85: The Federal Court upheld the validity of all claims, but found that PetroChina was not infringing Maoz Betser-Zilevitch's patent for an SAGD.
August 20, 2020
Salt v Baker - In a unanimous decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the Federal Court’s jurisdiction to hear contractual disputes involving patents.
March 18, 2020
2020 FC 338 – The Court concluded that the six individuals were listed as inventors “by inadvertence in the process of the division.”
June 11, 2019
AVX Corporation v Presidio Components (Fed. Cir., 2018-1106) A case recently dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) confirms that […]
September 13, 2018
2018 FC 311 – Pursuant to section 52 of the Patent Act, the FC ordered the variation of the Patent Office Records in relation to Canadian Patent Nos. 2,614,533 and 2,919,266 to rectify a mistake in the name of the legal owner of the patents.
May 8, 2018
2017 ONSC 7276 - The ONSC found that Rowland's statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action with regard to the allegation that his "trade secret" was stolen.
September 5, 2017
2016 FC 229 - The FC heard and granted an uncontested application by Novartis, pursuant to sections 31(3) and 52 of the Patent Act, to vary all entries in the records of the Patent Office with regards to the inventorship of a Canadian Patent.