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.
Louis Brown et al v HMTQ et al, 2014 FC 831 - Canada successfully argued that the inventor made an untrue material allegation for having not indicated in the patent application that he was a public servant, but whether this would invalidate the patent was considered a genuine issue requiring a trial.