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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.