Twitter’s IPA: does it live up to the hype?

April 17, 2012 | Category: Uncategorized |

Twitter is being lauded for its “revolutionary” Innovator’s Patent Agreement (IPA), on the basis that it purports to “put ownership of patents back in the hands of the inventors”.  But what does it actually do? Twitter posted the IPA recently here and invited comments.  Quick commentary in the Twittersphere (suitably) was wholly favourable and lauded […]

Read More
Comments Off

An “object” clause is not necessarily a promise, says Federal Court of Appeal

April 17, 2012 | Category: Uncategorized |

It used to be common practice to include an “object clause” in a patent specification to clearly set out an over-arching objective of the invention.  Many granted patents have multiple object clauses, setting out a number of goals for the invention.  This practice died away as patent drafters came to realize that courts may interpret […]

Read More
Comments Off

Open war-of-words at CAFC: Bard Peripheral Vascular v. W.L. Gore & Associates

February 10, 2012 | Category: Uncategorized |

Newman, J. and Gajarsa, J. engage in open warfare in their respective reasons in Bard Peripheral Vascular v. W.L. Gore & Associates. The judgment is a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in a long-running dispute regarding US patent no. 6,436,135 (first filed in 1974!), which relates to prosthetic vascular grafts fabricated from […]

Read More
Comments Off

Broken promises: Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter

February 9, 2012 | Category: Uncategorized |

The judgment of Martineau J. in Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée, 2012 FC 113, was released recently.  It represents a win for Eurocopter in that Bell was found to infringe claim 15 of Canadian Patent no. 2,207,787 (the ‘787 Patent).  Much will be made of the fact Martineau J. awarded punitive damages; however, […]

Read More
Comments Off

A fuzzy line being drawn by the CAFC to circumscribe “abstract ideas”

January 26, 2012 | Category: Uncategorized |

A trio of recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) cases, including last week’s decision in DealerTrack v. Huber, give some insight into what the Court considers a patentable process versus an unpatentable “abstract idea” in the United States.  Unfortunately, the line between the two is fuzzy at best. When the United States […]

Read More
Comments Off

Plavix patent from 2008 SCC Sanofi judgment now invalidated

January 12, 2012 | Category: Uncategorized |

In 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down one of the most significant patent law judgments of the past decade in Apotex v. Sanofi, 2008 SCC 61. That judgment set the modern tests for evaluating novelty and obviousness in Canadian patent law. The SCC case arose under the Notice of Compliance procedure of the […]

Read More
Comments Off

Launch of our website and blog

January 4, 2012 | Category: Uncategorized |

It has been a long time coming, but our new website is now up and running. If you are reading this then you have also discovered that we have incorporated a blog into the website.  Through the blog, we will bring you news of recent judgments, legislative changes, or other happenings in the world of […]

Read More
Comments Off