2016 FC 336 - The FC affirmed Prothonotary Tabib’s decision to strike some of Gilead Science's pleadings and allow the infringement action to continue on the basis of amended allegations of a likely future (quia timet) infringement.
2016 ONSC 7193 - The ONSC heard pleadings by Apotex and Pfizer concerning Pfizer’s, now invalid, patent for Viagra. Apotex had previously been prevented from manufacturing its own generic because of the Viagra patent, and now claimed damages for the delay in being able to market its own variant. The appeal was dismissed and Apotex’s claim was allowed to proceed unstruck.
2015 BCCA 506 - This BCCA decision confirmed that the patent regulatory regime – that being the Patent Act, the Patent Rules, the Food and Drugs Act, the Food and Drug Regulations, and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, is a complete code which forecloses parallel civil actions rooted in a breach of the Patent Act.
2015 FC 108 - Patent drafters are required to provide adequate disclosure of an invention in patent applications to reduce the likelihood that the granted patent will be litigated and invalidated years down the road. This Federal Court (“FC”) decision dismissed an application for a prohibition order on the grounds of non-infringement and found the patent to be obvious and lacking in utility.
(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.
2016 FC 883 - The Federal Court followed the longstanding rule against the use of patent prosecution file history in interpreting the claims of a patent, but made a strong case for why the patent prosecution file history is worth considering, as is common practice in the U.S.
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.