AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 322 - Claim 1 was worded general enough to capture Apotex’s subcoating layer even though Apotex’s subcoating layer was generated by an in situ chemical reaction, a process that the patentee had not contemplated.
Microsoft Corporation v Proxyconn, Inc, - The “broadest reasonable interpretation standard” (“BRI”) standard is the standard for claim construction in Inter Partes Review IPR proceedings and newly substituted claims must be demonstrated to be patentable over the prior art of record.
Kimble et al v Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. ____ (2015) - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 50 year old rule from Brulotte v Thys Co, 379 US 29, that prohibits royalties from being charged on formerly patented products after the patent has expired.
In the age of the “Lean Startup” $100,000 can be enough to get a startup well off the ground. However, with such tight budgets and limited funding there is often not much room left to pay a professional patent agent several thousand dollars to draft your patent application. This article provides some pointers on how to draft your own provisional software patent application.
Groves v Canasonics Inc, 2015 ABQB 314 - After a falling out between a director and Canasonics Inc., the former director sought to ensure that any intellectual property in critical unpatented tools remained his own, and sought to reverse the transfer of a number of patents that he had already assigned to the company.
ViiV Healthcare ULC v Teva Canada Limited, 2015 FCA 93 - The FCA confirmed that paragraph 4(2)(a) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance Regulations) requires that a patent listed on the register requires an “exacting threshold of specificity” between what is claimed in the patent and what has been approved in the Notice of Compliance. However, proposed amendments to the PM(NOC) Regulations would reverse this holding.
Commissioner’s Decision #1376 - The Application, which sought to patent what is essentially one manifestation of the hydrogen economy, was rejected for ambiguity since the Application’s use of the term “water… inputs” as claimed was not supported by the description. Water is only ever described as taking part in intermediary steps in the claimed method, not as an energy input, as in hydroelectric power.