Home » Category: 'Patent Practice'

Patent Practice

Examining Ambiguities in Patent Examination Guidelines by Dr. Siva Thambisetty

Examining Ambiguities in Patent Examination Guidelines by Dr. Siva Thambisetty

As part of the IP Osgoode Speaks Series, Dr. Siva Thambisetty, an associate professor of law at the London School of Economics, visited Osgoode Hall Law School to speak on the subject of patent dialect. The main focus of her talk, entitled, "Is Patent Law Evasive or Merely Elusive?", was to highlight the issue of […]

Utility Emphasis Lacking in the Examination of Aggregations

Utility Emphasis Lacking in the Examination of Aggregations

The distinction between combinations and aggregations is a well-accepted principle of patent law. A combination is an assemblage of known elements whose combined use leads to a result that is different from the sum of the results of the individual elements. Whereas, an aggregation is an assemblage of elements that each produce their expected result […]

The View Ahead for Software Patent Applications: USPTO Releases Update to Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

The View Ahead for Software Patent Applications: USPTO Releases Update to Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

This article is cross-posted with permission from Bereskin & Parr. The United States Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) has released an updated set of Eligibility Examination Guidelines to provide guidance to examiners on when to reject claimed inventions as ineligible abstract ideas. These guidelines give a sense of what computer-implemented subject matter the USPTO considers […]

An Unexpected Infringement: There and Back Again

An Unexpected Infringement: There and Back Again

On March 16, 2015, Justice Barnes held that AstraZeneca’s Patent No 1,292,693 (“’693 Patent”), a formulation patent for omeprazole, was valid and infringed by Apotex (2015 FC 322). This decision represents the latest entry in the 22-year old cross-jurisdictional Omeprazole saga between AstraZeneca and Apotex. Because the proceedings were bifurcated, a separate reference for damage […]

China’s Bitter Medicine for Gilead: SIPO Cancels Viread Patent

China’s Bitter Medicine for Gilead: SIPO Cancels Viread Patent

Last August, China's State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) invalidated the core patent for Gilead Sciences' flagship drug Viread (as was reported by IPR Daily and a number of other news sources).  This landmark ruling comes on the heels of recent changes to China's compulsory licensing scheme for pharmaceutical products.  This quick-step of legislative reform followed by the […]

Inequitable Conduct in Canadian Patent Prosecution

Inequitable Conduct in Canadian Patent Prosecution

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently provided an example of when patents will be invalidated due to inequitable conduct. Canadian patent law presently has no comparable doctrine of inequitable conduct, but the US ruling provides an interesting comparative basis from which to discuss the duty of good faith in Canadian […]

Splitting the Difference Between Antitrust and Intellectual Property: FTC v Actavis

Splitting the Difference Between Antitrust and Intellectual Property: FTC v Actavis

The dividing line between intellectual property and antitrust laws was further clarified last week when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) settled a debate on the illegality of Reverse Payment Agreements (RPAs) in Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v Actavis. In so doing, the Court split the difference between the FTC’s assertion that RPAs […]