2015 BCCA 506 - This BCCA decision confirmed that the patent regulatory regime – that being the Patent Act, the Patent Rules, the Food and Drugs Act, the Food and Drug Regulations, and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, is a complete code which forecloses parallel civil actions rooted in a breach of the Patent Act.
PAB 1393 - The Patent Appeal Board found that Canadian Patent Application No. 2,544,223, entitled “Stabilized Alpha Helical Peptides and Uses Thereof” lacked utility, lacked sufficient disclosure, was obvious, and included indefinite claims.
2015 FC 108 - Patent drafters are required to provide adequate disclosure of an invention in patent applications to reduce the likelihood that the granted patent will be litigated and invalidated years down the road. This Federal Court (“FC”) decision dismissed an application for a prohibition order on the grounds of non-infringement and found the patent to be obvious and lacking in utility.
PAB 1392 - Patent applicants should be wary of relying solely on evidence of commercial success to avoid rejection on the grounds of obviousness, as factors such as marketing may be found to be the actual reason for the success.
2015 FC 247 - The Federal Court reminds us that a selection patent will typically require something more than routine testing to justify the reclaiming of a particular compound within a previously known class of compounds.
The ITC finally dropped its investigation against the dental equipment manufacturer ClearCorrect. The move comes long after the ITC lost a legal battle that decided that the ITC does not have the power to police the importation of digital data, even where that digital data is being used to 3D-print a patented product in the United States.
2016 FCA 119 - The FCA dismissed the appeal, which alleged that Canadian Patent No. 2,226,784 was invalid on the basis of obviousness-type double-patenting and for lack of utility due to no sound prediction. As a result, the ‘784 patent was upheld.
2014 FCA 68 - Innovator pharmaceutical companies should be cautious and think twice about how aggressively they defend their patents as they could potentially face paying more than 100% of actual damages as an award under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations.