PAB 1408 - The Canadian version of one of the computer-implemented financial services patent applications from the famous U.S. case on software patent eligibility, Alice Corp v CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), was rejected for lack of patentable subject matter.
2015 FCA 191 - The FCA dismissed an appeal wherein Alcon sought to reverse a finding of invalidity against its patent by surreptitiously asking the FCA to reweigh the evidence as a challenge against the Federal Court Judge’s findings of fact and preferred expert evidence.
2016 FCA 230 - The FCA found that the EXJADE patent was drafted so as to make an important distinction between the utilities of the Formula I and Formula II compounds, and thereby held the Formula II claims to a lesser promise, and dismissed Teva’s allegations of inutility.
PAB 1407 - The PAB rejected the computer-implemented data analytics patent application of Canadian Patent Application No. 2,798,566, entitled “Identified Customer Reporting”, for lack of statutory subject matter, since no physical feature – no computing device – was found to be essential to the claims.
In Re Smith, (Fed. Cir. 2015-1664) - A patent application for a variation on the blackjack game was rejected as unpatentable after the CAFC applied the two-step test for patentable subject matter from Mayo and Alice.
2015 FCA 163 - In the obviousness analysis and determining whether a person skilled in the art would have discovered the prior art, the FCA upheld the application of a reasonably diligent search standard.
2016 FC 830 - The FC dismissed a case of contractual dispute over the ownership of a patent, and commented that, regardless of whether conflict of laws principles apply, no assignment or transfer of a patent can take place except in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the patent was granted (s. 51 of the Patent Act).
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.
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.