- Filter by
- Categories
- Tags
- Show all
- Article
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Corporate
- Domain Names
- Employment
- Expungement
- Expungement
- Grey Marketing
- Industrial Designs
- Licensing
- Obviousness
- Opposition
- Passing Off
- Patent
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Strategy
- PCK News
- PM(NOC)
- Procedure
- Prosecution
- Services
- Summary
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Use
- Validity
- Abandonment
- Abstract Theorems
- Abuse of Process
- Accounting of Profits
- Advertising
- Alice/Mayo Test
- Ambiguity
- Anticipation
- Appeal
- Apple
- Artificial Intelligence
- Assignment
- Bargain Theory
- Biosimilar
- Biotech Patents
- Branding
- business
- CAFC
- Canada
- Certificate of Supplementary Protection
- Chemical Patent
- CIPO
- claim
- Claim Construction
- Class Actions
- College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
- combination drugs
- Commercial Success
- Common General Knowledge
- Confidential Information
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Costs
- Counterfeit
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- COVID-19
- Damages
- Data Protection
- Design Patents
- Distinctiveness
- Diversity
- Divisional Applications
- DNA Patents
- Domain Names
- Dosage Range
- Double Patenting
- Due Care
- E-Commerce
- Enablement
- Estoppel
- Evidence
- Expert Evidence
- Fair Use
- Federal Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- File Wrapper Estoppel
- Food and Drug Regulations
- Fraud
- funding
- Generic Drugs
- Hague Agreement
- Indefiniteness
- Induced Infringement
- Industrial Designs
- Injunction
- Innovation
- Innovative Drugs
- Insufficient Disclosure
- Intellectual Property
- Inter Partes Review
- Investors
- IP Litigation
- IP Strategy
- IP Treaty
- IPIC
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm
- Licensing IP
- Madrid Protocol
- Methods of Medical Treatment
- Non-Infringing Alternative
- Non-Practicing Entity
- Novelty
- Obviousness
- Official Marks
- On-Sale Bar
- Overbreadth
- Ownership & Inventorship
- Passing Off
- Patent Act
- Patent Agent
- Patent Appeal Board
- Patent Application
- Patent Drafting
- Patent Fees
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Law
- Patent Lawyer
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Rules
- Patent Strategy
- Patent Term Adjustment
- Patent Textbook
- Patent Trolls
- Patent Validity
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Patents
- PCT
- Pharmaceutical Patent
- Pharmaceutical Pricing
- PM(NOC)
- PMPRB
- Prior Art
- Prior Disclosure
- prior use
- Priority
- Privilege
- Product Specificity
- Products
- Promise Doctrine
- Provisional Patent
- Punitive Damages
- Quebec
- Reinstatement
- Remedies
- SCOTUS
- Selection Patent
- Software
- Software Copyright
- Software Patent
- Sound Prediction
- Springboard Profits
- SRED
- Standard of Review
- Start-up
- Startups
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Technology
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Trademark Agent
- Trademark Expungement
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Law
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Registration
- Trademarks Act
- United States
- Use
- USPTO
- Utility
June 30, 2015
June 30, 2015
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.
January 8, 2015
January 8, 2015
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.
December 12, 2014
December 12, 2014
Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks, [2014] 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.
October 28, 2014
October 28, 2014
Commissioner’s Decision # 1355 - Canadian Patent Application No. 2,493,971 on a computerized auction system was rejected for lack of statutory subject matter for being merely an abstract set of rules.
June 20, 2014
June 20, 2014
Alice Corp v CLS Bank, No 13–298, 573 US ____ (2014) - The US Supreme Court rejected patent claims that “relate to a computerized scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’" for being drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement. Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
October 2, 2013
October 2, 2013
Re. Patent Application No. 2,144,068, CD 1339 This decision was a review by the Patent Appeal Board of the Examiner’s final rejection in respect of Canadian […]
October 1, 2013
October 1, 2013
Re. Patent Application No. 2,304,195, CD 1338 This decision was a review by the Patent Appeal Board (PAB) of the final rejection of patent application no. […]
July 16, 2013
July 16, 2013
Re. Patent Application No. 2,344,781, CD 1336 This is an Appeal Board decision regarding patent application number 2,344,781 entitled "Monitoring System for Determining and Communicating a […]
July 11, 2013
July 11, 2013
Re. Patent Application No. 2306540, CD 1334 This patent application concerned the tracking of required payments or refunds of value added taxes for mailpieces. The Final […]
May 29, 2013
May 29, 2013
Link to the proposed amendments to the Patents Bill. Rather than excluding a computer program from being a patentable invention, the amendments clarify that a computer program […]
April 19, 2013
April 19, 2013
Examination Practice Respecting Computer-Implemented Inventions – PN 2013-03 These guidelines build upon the guidance in Chapter 16 (Computer-Implemented Inventions) of the MOPOP and in PN 2013-02 […]
March 28, 2013
March 28, 2013
CD 1332, Re. Patent Application No. 2,195,252 entitled "System and Method for Distributing Information for Storage Media" This decision deals with a review by the Commissioner […]