Patents Archives - Page 12 of 18

May 12, 2015

The Oft Missed Synergy: Patents and SRED

Flat-out ignoring patents and SRED can result in leaving a lot of value on the table. Whatever one may think of patents, it is a fact that they can provide enormous value to a technology company if they are done correctly. By the same token, a successful SRED claim can lead to a significant short term financial boost for cash conscious companies.

April 30, 2015

Google Offers to Purchase your Patents

From May 8, 2015 through May 22, 2015, Google will be accepting applications from patent-holders wishing to sell any patent to Google through its experimental Patent Purchase Program. Google hopes that its program will improve the marketplace for patents for everyone, but especially for smaller participants, who too often end up selling their patents to patent trolls.

April 22, 2015

Determining the Common General Knowledge from the Background of a Patent Upheld as a Reasonable Factual Finding

Newco Tank Corp v Canada (Attorney General) 2015 FCA 47 - The Board made a reasonable factual finding when it found that the background knowledge of the person skilled in the art was described in the background information of a patent. This determination was instrumental in the Board’s determination that the patent was obvious.

March 24, 2015

Mylan-Tadalafil does not Infringe Eli Lilly’s Formulation Patent in NOC Proceeding

Eli Lilly Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2015 FC 178 - Mylan did not infringe the ‘948 Patent because the Mylan’s tadalafil compound did not have the claimed particle size distribution and the formulation did not contain the claimed concentration of hydrophilic binder. The Court rejected two purposive arguments by Eli Lilly in favour of a more literal reading of the patent.

March 6, 2015

Three Simple Steps Towards Building a Patent Strategy

Canadians demonstrate excellence at many things. There are the obvious clichés like maple syrup, hockey, politeness and modesty. However, our excellence at politeness hides some of our other impressive strengths, like innovation and technology. In turn, our modesty seems to keep Canadians from protecting their intellectual property (IP) at rates disproportionate to our OECD counterparts. I have been working in the intellectual property field for nearly twenty years and can share many anecdotes of Canadian companies that are world innovation leaders who, because of that charming modesty, essentially give away their intellectual property.

March 3, 2015

Physical Stability Experiments did not Adequately Demonstrate or Soundly Predict Utility for Overbroad Eye Drop Patent

Alcon Canada Inc v Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company, 2014 FC 149 - The Court examined in detail a number of experiments disclosed in the patent that were said to establish the claimed utility, but the experiments did not demonstrate or soundly predict utility for the broad ranges of molecular weight and chemical concentration claimed.

February 25, 2015

Federal Court Upholds Gap between Claim Construction and PM(NOC) Product Specificity Requirement for Combination Drugs

Eli Lilly Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 152 - This decision clearly states 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.

February 23, 2015

United States Supreme Court Clarifies that Claim Construction can Involve Subsidiary Factual Disputes that are Reviewed on a Clear Error Standard

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, et al v Sandoz, Inc, et al, 574 US __ (2015) - United States Supreme Court clarified that claim construction can involve subsidiary factual disputes that are reviewed on a clear error standard, while the ultimate question of claim construction is reviewed de novo.

February 5, 2015

Federal Court Reverses Commissioner’s Opinion that Janssen Altered the Prohibition against Patenting of Methods of Medical Treatment

AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 1251 - The core of the Commissioner’s argument was that Janssen Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2010 FC 1123, broadened the prohibition against patents on methods of medical treatment to include generally claims which restrict the “how and when” a physician could administer a particular drug. The Court found that the Commissioner had misread Janssen.

January 23, 2015

Patent for using a Short Needle for Intradermal Delivery for Vaccinations Rejected for Obviousness

Commissioner’s Decision # 1371 - The Commissioner refused to grant GlaxoSmithKline’s patent application for an “influenza vaccine formulation for intradermal delivery” due to obviousness since there was always a motivation to use the ID route, but it had always been impractical until the advent of a short needle device.

January 13, 2015

Commissioner Finds Non-Invasive Virtual Reality Training System to be Inventive

Commissioner’s Decision # 1372 - The Patent Appeal Board reversed an examiner’s finding of obviousness for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,554,498, which discloses a virtual reality simulator for training users in the skill of welding.

January 8, 2015

Commissioner Approves eBay’s Automated Email Notification Patent

Commissioner’s Decision # 1369 - Two elements of the invention were found to be inventive: (1) the “push” process for keeping status information up-to-date, and (2) the automatic notification system that automatically sends an email message only when a delivery status has changed.

December 22, 2014

Industry Canada to Amend PM(NOC) Regulations Respecting Patents Listed for Combination Drugs

The proposed amendments are said to clarify the patent listing requirements as they relate to single medicinal ingredients found in combination drugs and confirm Health Canada’s established practices which, in light of recent Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions, may need to change.

December 19, 2014

Section 52 of Patent Act used to Add Inventors to a Patent after an Omission due to Misunderstanding of Canadian Law

Dr Falk Pharma GMBH v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2014 FC 1117 - Pursuant to section 52 of the Patent Act, the Federal Court ordered that the Commissioner of Patents add Peter Gruber to the list of inventors for Canadian Patent No. 2,297,832. Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH, the applicant and owner of the patent, inadvertently omitted Gruber’s name from the list of inventors.

December 18, 2014

NSCA Draws Distinction Between Ordering Patent Assignment and Ordering a Transfer of Interest

Bardsley v Stewart, 2014 NSCA 106 - The Court found that the order was fair as it was merely ordering that Bardsley transfer his interests in the ‘770 Application to the extent possible, thus stopping just short of ordering assignment.

December 12, 2014

UK Court holds email file transfer program is unpatentable subject matter

Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks, [2014] EWCA Civ 1463 - The UK Court rejected a patent on a method of transferring files via email communication for unpatentable subject matter for being no more than a computer program.

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.

November 21, 2014

FCA Dismisses Apotex Appeal to have the Promise Doctrine Extended

Apotex Inc v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2014 FCA 250 - The Court rejected Apotex’s sweeping argument that any given promise in the patent must be construed as overarching to all of the patent’s claims.

November 14, 2014

A Verbal Contract Makes Transpharm Liable for Costs of Patents that Name its CEO as Owner

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP v Transpharm Canada Inc, 2014 ONSC 5643 - There was no written retainer to explicitly identify the client. However, citing the 10 year period during which Gowlings treated Transpharm as its client and as responsible for the cost of the patent services, the Court concluded that Transpharm verbally retained Gowlings.

November 12, 2014

Ownership of a Patent was Transferred from a Director to the Corporation as if the Director were an Employee

Nature-Control Technologies Inc v Li, 2014 BCSC 1868 - The Court determined that a patent transferred from a director and co-owner of a corporation to the corporation by the implied intention of the parties by importing the analysis that is undertaken when determining if intellectual property impliedly passes from an employee to an employer.