Case summaries and articles about patents.
- Filter by
- Categories
- Tags
- Show all
- Article
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Corporate
- Domain Names
- Employment
- Expungement
- Expungement
- Grey Marketing
- Industrial Designs
- Licensing
- Obviousness
- Opposition
- Passing Off
- Patent
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Strategy
- PCK News
- PM(NOC)
- Procedure
- Prosecution
- Services
- Summary
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Use
- Validity
- Abandonment
- Abstract Theorems
- Abuse of Process
- Accounting of Profits
- Alice/Mayo Test
- Ambiguity
- Anticipation
- Appeal
- Apple
- Artificial Intelligence
- Assignment
- Bargain Theory
- Biosimilar
- Biotech Patents
- Branding
- business
- CAFC
- Canada
- Certificate of Supplementary Protection
- Chemical Patent
- CIPO
- Claim Construction
- Class Actions
- College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
- combination drugs
- Commercial Success
- Common General Knowledge
- Confidential Information
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Costs
- Counterfeit
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- COVID-19
- Damages
- Data Protection
- Design Patents
- Distinctiveness
- Diversity
- DNA Patents
- Domain Names
- Dosage Range
- Double Patenting
- Due Care
- E-Commerce
- Enablement
- Estoppel
- Evidence
- Expert Evidence
- Fair Use
- Federal Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- File Wrapper Estoppel
- Food and Drug Regulations
- Fraud
- funding
- Generic Drugs
- Hague Agreement
- Indefiniteness
- Induced Infringement
- Industrial Designs
- Injunction
- Innovation
- Innovative Drugs
- Insufficient Disclosure
- Intellectual Property
- Inter Partes Review
- Investors
- IP Litigation
- IP Strategy
- IP Treaty
- IPIC
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm
- Licensing IP
- Madrid Protocol
- Methods of Medical Treatment
- Non-Infringing Alternative
- Non-Practicing Entity
- Novelty
- Obviousness
- Official Marks
- On-Sale Bar
- Overbreadth
- Ownership & Inventorship
- Passing Off
- Patent Act
- Patent Agent
- Patent Appeal Board
- Patent Application
- Patent Drafting
- Patent Fees
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Law
- Patent Lawyer
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Rules
- Patent Strategy
- Patent Term Adjustment
- Patent Textbook
- Patent Trolls
- Patent Validity
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Patents
- PCT
- Pharmaceutical Patent
- Pharmaceutical Pricing
- PM(NOC)
- PMPRB
- Prior Art
- Prior Disclosure
- prior use
- Priority
- Privilege
- Product Specificity
- Promise Doctrine
- Provisional Patent
- Punitive Damages
- Reinstatement
- Remedies
- SCOTUS
- Selection Patent
- Software
- Software Copyright
- Software Patent
- Sound Prediction
- Springboard Profits
- SRED
- Standard of Review
- Start-up
- Startups
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Technology
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Trademark Agent
- Trademark Expungement
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Law
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Registration
- Trademarks Act
- United States
- Use
- USPTO
- Utility
April 22, 2016
April 22, 2016
2015 FC 1156 - The FC found that Idenix’s patent was invalid for a lack of utility, demonstrated or soundly predicted, and for insufficient disclosure.
April 11, 2016
April 11, 2016
2015 FC 570 - The FC favoured the respondent’s "blinded expert" evidence in which the experts provided their opinions before knowing what was claimed in the disputed patents.
April 5, 2016
April 5, 2016
2015 FC 125 - The existing patent was invalid on the grounds of lack of utility for having made a promise of utility that could not be demonstrated nor soundly predicted, was anticipated by a previous patent of the applicant that claimed an overlapping dosage range, and was also therefore made obvious by the same previous patent.
March 30, 2016
March 30, 2016
2015 FCA 116 - The FCA advised that where expert evidence plays a significant role, claim construction might involve subsidiary factual disputes reviewed on a palpable and overriding error standard, which is equivalent to the United States clear error standard.
February 26, 2016
February 26, 2016
The CAFC took issue with inconsistent statements between a provisional patent application and the subsequent formal patent and invalidated a number of the patent’s claims for being indefinite.
February 22, 2016
February 22, 2016
There are a lot of IP service providers out there. In this post I attempt to provide some guidelines for helping companies to assess IP counsel and choose the right one.
February 10, 2016
February 10, 2016
2015 FCA 171 - The FCA determined that it is relevant to damages whether the infringer had a non-infringing alternative that it could have used.
November 30, 2015
November 30, 2015
2015 FCA 249 - The Federal Court of Appeal clearly stated that the price regulation provisions apply not only to literal patent holders, but also to exclusive licensees of patents.
November 23, 2015
November 23, 2015
The CAFC has now granted a petition for a rehearing the case on this issue of whether or not the sale of bivalirudin from the supplier gave rise to an on-sale bar.
November 16, 2015
November 16, 2015
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd v Exxonmobil Upstream, 2015 FC 1218 - The Federal Court has finally stated outright that it has the jurisdiction to vary patent ownership without encroaching upon the realm of provincial contract law.
October 7, 2015
October 7, 2015
Gilead Sciences, Inc v Canada (Health), 2015 FC 610 - Gilead's assertion that its patent is valid would be relitigating old issues and an abuse of PM(NOC) proceedings.
October 6, 2015
October 6, 2015
Abb Technology AG, ABB Inc v Hyundai Heavy Industries Co, Ltd, 2015 FCA 181 - The FCA suggested that although claim construction is reviewed on a correctness standard, claim construction is so heavily reliant on expert witnesses that perhaps it should be reviewed on a palpable and overriding error standard.
October 2, 2015
October 2, 2015
Akamai Technologies, Inc, v Limelight Networks, Inc, 09-1372 - The CAFC held that where more than one actor is involved in infringing the steps in a patent, one of the actors can be held liable for the entirety of the infringement if that actor “directs or controls the other’s performance.”
September 30, 2015
September 30, 2015
OrthoArm Incorporated v GAC International, LLC, 2015 ONSC 5097 - The ONSC was to undertake the analysis that would normally be done at a Markman hearing: to perform claim construction on the US patent and apply that construction to determine whether there is infringement.
September 18, 2015
September 18, 2015
ClearCorrect Operating LLC, et al v International Trade Commission (No 2014-1527) - An appeal to the Federal Circuit will determine whether the ITC has jurisdiction over digital patent infringement: the ability to block the importation of patent-infringing “articles” if those articles take the form of digital information.
September 16, 2015
September 16, 2015
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc v Teva Canada Limited, 2015 FC 770 - Novartis was able to uphold its patent against allegations of invalidity from Teva, but not without the Federal Court making a number of razor thin distinctions between what the patent promised and what it did not.
September 15, 2015
September 15, 2015
Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 166 - The FCA rejected the notion adopted by the Federal Court that a higher level of specificity is required to adhere to the Regulations than is required for an element to be claimed as a matter of claim construction, bringing the law in line with Industry Canada proposed amendments.
September 9, 2015
September 9, 2015
AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FCA 158 - The FCA acknowledged that the word “will” often refers to an expectation or goal rather than a promise, but still held that the FC did not err in finding that a promise was made when reading the patent as a whole from the eyes of a skilled reader.
September 8, 2015
September 8, 2015
ADIR v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 721 - In an accounting of profits case, the FC stated that if a non-infringing alternative is to be considered, it “cannot be what one would have done had one complied with the law”.
September 2, 2015
September 2, 2015
AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 322 - Claim 1 was worded general enough to capture Apotex’s subcoating layer even though Apotex’s subcoating layer was generated by an in situ chemical reaction, a process that the patentee had not contemplated.