Patent Infringement
Case summaries and articles about patent infringement.
January 23, 2019
586 U.S. ___ (2019) SCOTUS affirms CAFC's decision holding that if the existence of the sale is public, the invention does not need to be publicly disclosed to fall within the AIA’s on-sale bar.
December 18, 2018
2018 FCA 172 – FCA affirms FC’s analysis on sufficient disclosure but quashes claim construction analysis.
December 4, 2018
2018 ONSC 5199 – ONSC rejects Apotex’s attempt to recast Promise Doctrine under s. 53 fraud allegations.
November 7, 2018
Fed. Cir. 2017-1977 – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirms the legal standard for obviousness in patent law.
October 3, 2018
2018 FC 956 – Federal Court confirms legal test applicable for protective orders, overturns Prothonotary's Order.
September 26, 2018
2018 FC 694 – Federal Court confirms that motion for early dismissal will only be granted in the clearest of cases.
August 28, 2018
2017 FC 874 - Aitken Klee disqualified from representing Betser-Zelevitch because one of its partners had acted for Nexen in the same action, while at another law firm.
June 27, 2018
2018 FCA 32 - The FCA dismissed Apotex’s appeal challenging the remedial decision, regarding Bayer's Canadian Patent No. 2,382,426, holding that subsection 57(1) of the Patent Act did not grant a defendant in a patent infringement suit the right to choose an accounting of profits over damages to be paid to the patentee.
April 3, 2018
2017 FC 726 - The FC held that Apotex did not satisfy the factual burden required to establish a hypothetically viable non-infringing substitute during the period of infringement, which could reduce the infringement profits owed to AstraZeneca.
December 12, 2017
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.