<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IPPractice.ca &#187; Daily Alert</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ippractice.ca/category/alert/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ippractice.ca</link>
	<description>Canadian Intellectual Property</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 14:31:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Expert Hot Tubbing</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/expert-hot-tubbing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=expert-hot-tubbing</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/expert-hot-tubbing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 21:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a decision released May 11, Justice Hughes ordered the concurrent testifying, or &#8220;hot tubbing&#8221; of expert witnesses. The decision is Apotex v. Astrazeneca Canada, 2012 FCC 559 (omeprazole), a PM(NOC) section 8 liability proceeding. The decision in T-2300-05 is not yet published on the court website but is available as a PDF. The quantification [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/expert-hot-tubbing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CIPO Annual Report</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/cipo-annual-report/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cipo-annual-report</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/cipo-annual-report/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 21:37:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Intellectual Property Office]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Canadian Intellectual Property Office has released its 2010-2011 Annual Report which includes reports on progress on client service, backlog and statistics. The Annual Report primarily addresses the achievements of CIPO&#8217;s goals with regards to its 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. As highlighted in the introduction: Client services: To improve products, services and processes in areas of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/cipo-annual-report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oracle v. Google</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/oracle-v-google/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=oracle-v-google</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/oracle-v-google/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 23:42:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A mixed verdict was issued today by the jury in the Oracle v. Google proceeding on the Android system and the Java language. The jury determined that Google has infringed the overall structure, sequence and organization of copyrighted works but the jury did not rule on Google&#8217;s &#8220;fair use&#8221; defence The proceeding is taking place [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/oracle-v-google/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ECJ on software</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/ecj-on-software/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ecj-on-software</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/ecj-on-software/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 21:48:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The European Court of Justice in SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd, C‑406/10 held that functional aspects of software are not an &#8220;expression&#8221; protected by copyright. While recognizing that the source code and object code are protected by copyright under EU directives, the court wrote: [39] &#8230; neither the functionality of a computer program nor [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/ecj-on-software/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patents in 2011</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/patents-in-2011/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=patents-in-2011</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/patents-in-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 12:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Intellectual Property Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The number of patent applications published or that entered national phase in Canada in 2011 was down slightly. Smart &#38; Biggar, Gowlings and Norton Rose remained the top three patent firms by volume of applications for 2011. My list of patents firms by volume is now available for 2011. The number of applications published with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/05/patents-in-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian Trademark firms in 2011</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/trademarks-in-2011/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=trademarks-in-2011</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/trademarks-in-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Intellectual Property Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Trademark filings for 2011 were up about 7% from 2010. The percentage of trademark applications filed directly by the applicant increased from about 17% in 2010 to about 20% in 2011. My list of the top trademark firms by volume is now available for 2011.Gowlings, Smart &#38; Biggar and Bereskin &#38; Parr remained the top [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/trademarks-in-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Australian High Court on ISP liability for copyright infringed</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/isp-liability/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=isp-liability</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/isp-liability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Friday, the High Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by content companies in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited, [2012] HCA 16 (summary) on the basis that under the Australian Copyright Act the ISP was not to be held liable as having authorised infringements by its customers using BitTorrent. The media companies had argued that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/isp-liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USSC on Orange Book information</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/orange-book/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=orange-book</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/orange-book/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:17:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1096</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision today in Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S on patent listing requirements in the FDA&#8217;s &#8220;Orange Book&#8221; for patented drugs. Caraco, an ANDA filer, brought a counterclaim in Novo&#8217;s Hatch-Waxman infringement action seeking an order that Novo correct patent information in the Orange Book on the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/orange-book/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Copyright gray market and Hatch-Waxman</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/us-ip-news/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=us-ip-news</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/us-ip-news/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1091</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert today in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley &#38; Sons, Inc. relating to gray market textbooks and the copyright first sale doctrine. Also today, the CAFC released two decisions relating to the Hatch-Waxman Act. In Kirtsaeng, the defendant brought foreign authorized copies of textbooks into the United States and sold them. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/us-ip-news/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appropriation of Personality</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/appropriate-of-personality/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=appropriate-of-personality</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/appropriate-of-personality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provincial court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1087</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a decision released recently, the Court of Queen&#8217;s Bench of Alberta in Hay v. Platinum Equities, 2012 ABQB 204 granted damages for the appropriation of personality of a &#8220;non-celebrity&#8221;. Justice Brooker held that the plaintiff, a professional accountant, had proven the tort of appropriation of personality during the trial. The Court found that the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/appropriate-of-personality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

