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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks,  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.
Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc,  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.
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.
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.
Drexan Energy Systems Inc v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2014 FC 887 - The Court found that two out of four contributors to the invention could not be added to the list of inventors because their contribution essentially amounted to suggesting desired features of the invention and communicating feedback from potential customers, which did not constitute an inventive contribution.
Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario v University of Utah Research Foundation, T-2249-14 - The CHEO will argue that the Long QT Patents that are inhibiting its ability to conduct medical testing claim unpatentable subject matter since the claimed nucleic acids are naturally occurring, encode for naturally occurring human genes, and were discovered by extracting genetic material from human beings. Validity of the method testing claims are also disputed.
Blair v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 861 - In coming to its finding of obviousness, the Commissioner determined that while the combination of the elements in the invention as a whole was novel, it did not involve ingenuity since there was a “trend in the art” of installing video systems in a wide variety of transportation systems.
Dow Chemical Co v NOVA Chemicals Corp, 2014 FC 844 - The Federal Court found that NOVA Chemicals infringed Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705, owned by The Dow Chemical Company, by NOVA’s use of its “SURPASS” polyethylene product. Allegations of invalidity for lack of utility, claims broader than any invention made or disclosed, anticipation, obviousness, double patenting, and insufficiency of the specification were unsuccessful.
D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc  FCAFC 115 - The Federal Court of Australia Full Court upheld the validity of Australian Patent No. 686004, which claims an isolated sequence of DNA useful for cancer diagnosis, as qualifying as a “manner of manufacture” and thus patentable subject matter pursuant to section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.