Patent Infringement

Case summaries and articles about patent infringement.

August 22, 2016

FC Bifurcates Infringement & Validity Issues from Section 8 PM(NOC) Proceeding in Hopes of Settlement

2016 FC 720 - The FC bifurcated the issues of infringement and validity from any other section 8 issue in hopes that bifurcation would likely lead to a settlement of all the issues between the parties.
August 19, 2016

Injunctions for Patent Infringement: Only “Some” Connection Between a Product’s Infringing Features And Demand For Competitor’s Product is Required

(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 8, 2016

FC Calls on Opening Canadian Patent Prosecution File Histories for Claim Construction

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.
August 8, 2016

Knowledge of Related Patents not “Actual Knowledge” for Awarding Pre-Issuance Damages

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.
November 29, 2014

UK Supreme Court: Patent Infringement Does Not Support a Defence of Illegality

Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc, [2014] UKSC 55 - The UK Supreme Court rejected the argument that patent infringement could form the basis for the defence of illegality since patent rights do not give rise to the sort of public interest consideration that underpins the defence of illegality.
April 15, 2014

Federal Court Dismisses Bell’s Motion to Disqualify the Law Firm of Bereskin and Parr in Patent Infringement Action

Mediatube Corp. and Northvu Inc v Bell Canada et al, 2014 FC 237 - The Court dismissed a motion to remove Bereskin & Parr as solicitors of record for Mediatube for a conflict of interest, finding that “[w]hile there may be some circumstances where related companies could be considered as one entity and one client, the circumstances in the present case do not lead to that conclusion.”
July 3, 2013

FC Construes Claim, Holds “a” Means “one”

Zero Spill Systems (Int’l) Inc. v. 614248 Alberta Ltd. – 2013 FC 616 This action concerns allegations of infringement of two Canadian Patents No. 2,258,064 (064 […]
February 4, 2013

Breach of Timely Notice Requirement Does Not Deprive Licensee from Patent Infringement Defence and Indemnity under Software Licensing Agreement

Coastal Contacts Inc. v. Elastic Path Software Inc., 2013 BCSC 133 Overturned on Appeal [2013 BCCA 541] Elastic Path and Coastal Contacts entered into a Software […]
January 31, 2013

Rule 210 Motion for Default Judgment Requires Affidavit Evidence Directed to the Substance of the Statement of Claim

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Verdegem, 2013 FC 50 Monsanto commenced an action for infringement of its patent covering genetic material found in plant seeds. Verdegem was […]
January 22, 2013

Rule 21 Motion to Strike a Statement of Claim and Exceptions to Patent Infringement

Allergan Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2012 ONSC 398 Apotex moved to strike Allergan’s Statement of Claim which alleged that Apotex infringed its patents covering the compound […]