Patent Litigation
October 11, 2019
CAFC 2018-1763 – In fiercely dissented decision, a top US court has invalidated an automotive patent, further extending the reach of the controversial §101.
September 20, 2019
CAFC 2018-2207 – The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that “wherein” clauses in patent claims can be limiting if they are material to patentability.
August 23, 2019
A draft bill released May 22nd proposes significant reforms to section 101 of the US Patent Act. Businesses should be aware of the commercial impact.
May 7, 2019
Fed. Cir., 2016-2222 - CAFC affirms that a patent may be successfully defended if the patent holder can prove that the invention was conceived prior to any similar prior art.
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.
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.
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 19, 2017
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 5, 2017
2017 FC 826 - The FC declined to approve, or disapprove, Seedlings' litigation funding agreement with Bentham, where Bentham would fund Seedlings' patent litigation against Pfizer. The FC found that it lacked jurisdiction, as contractual matters are generally provincial in nature, and that only agreements related to class action proceedings would require the approval of the FC.