<?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; News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ippractice.ca/category/news/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>Industrial Design Consultation</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/industrial-design-consultation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=industrial-design-consultation</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/industrial-design-consultation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Intellectual Property Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industrial Designs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule Changes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIPO has released consultation documents on the timing of accelerated examination for industrial design applications with claims of priority. The consultation documents relate to the order in which industrial design applications are examined when there are claims to priority. The proposed practice would allow an applicant to provide the priority documents specified under Section 20(2) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/04/industrial-design-consultation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Osgoode IP Pick of the Week</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/03/ip-osgoode-ip-pick-of-the-week/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ip-osgoode-ip-pick-of-the-week</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/03/ip-osgoode-ip-pick-of-the-week/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:28:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1008</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This website was honoured with being selected as &#8220;IP Pick of the Week&#8221; by IP Osgoode in its March 13, 2012 IPIGRAM. Thank you for the mention and support!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/03/ip-osgoode-ip-pick-of-the-week/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Article on Voltage Pictures litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/03/article-on-voltage-pictures-litigation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=article-on-voltage-pictures-litigation</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/03/article-on-voltage-pictures-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:22:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=1006</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Lawyers Weekly has published an article I wrote about the Voltage Pictures litigation against peer-to-peer downloaders (Voltage Pictures LLC v. Jane Doe, T-1373-11). I have previously blogged about the litigation when the Federal Court required ISPs to provide identifying information of the defendants and about the evidence provided to the court. [Updated: Here is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/03/article-on-voltage-pictures-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Copyright updates</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/copyright-updates/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=copyright-updates</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/copyright-updates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=980</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The European Court of Justice released a decision last week in SABAM vs Netlog (C-360/10) denying a request that a social network site install general filters against the exchange of copyrighted music and videos. In Canadian copyright news, Bill C-11, the copyright amendment Bill went to committee with a schedule to review the bill by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/copyright-updates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USSC issues decision on copyright and public domain</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/ussc-issues-decision-on-copyright-and-public-domain/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ussc-issues-decision-on-copyright-and-public-domain</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/ussc-issues-decision-on-copyright-and-public-domain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:40:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The United States Supreme Court issued a decision today in Golan v. Holder on the constitutionality of measures to apply copyright to certain works not previously covered by copyright. The majority (6-2) held that the measures were constitutional.The law at issue applied copyright protection to mostly works authored outside the United States which had not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/ussc-issues-decision-on-copyright-and-public-domain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amazon.com&#8217;s &#8216;one-click&#8217; patent granted in Canada</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/amazon-coms-one-click-patent-granted-in-canada/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=amazon-coms-one-click-patent-granted-in-canada</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/amazon-coms-one-click-patent-granted-in-canada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:42:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Intellectual Property Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=941</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As an update to my post earlier this month about the allowance of the patent application, the Amazon.com &#8220;one-click&#8221; patent has been granted in Canada. The Canadian Patent Office website shows that CA2,246,933 has an issue date of today.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/amazon-coms-one-click-patent-granted-in-canada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First CIRA domain name decision under new Policy</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/11/first-cira-domain-name-decision-under-new-policy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=first-cira-domain-name-decision-under-new-policy</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/11/first-cira-domain-name-decision-under-new-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule Changes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=850</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a decision published by CIRA (PDF), a dispute panel of three members held that the domain name &#60;sunbrella.ca&#62; be transferred to the complainant. The panel was the first panel to consider the new Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy that came into force in August. The decision included a lengthy discussion of the bad faith [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/11/first-cira-domain-name-decision-under-new-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two judges nominated to Supreme Court of Canada</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/10/two-judges-nominated-to-supreme-court-of-canada/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=two-judges-nominated-to-supreme-court-of-canada</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/10/two-judges-nominated-to-supreme-court-of-canada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=789</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Prime Minister has nominated Justices Moldaver and Karakatsanis, both currently of the Ontario Court of Appeal for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, replacing Justices Binnie and Charon who both retired earlier this year. The Globe and Mail has an article on the appointees and the process leading to them joining the Supreme Court. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/10/two-judges-nominated-to-supreme-court-of-canada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Site mentioned on Slaw.ca</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/09/site-mentioned-on-slaw-ca/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=site-mentioned-on-slaw-ca</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/09/site-mentioned-on-slaw-ca/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 02:10:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provincial court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=756</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The blog, Slaw.ca mentioned the IPPractice.ca website today with regard to the Docket Browser feature. As identified by Ted Tjaden, the IPPractice.ca docket browser includes the docket entries, as well as related court decisions, appeals and the patented medicine where it can be identified. Ted Tjaden maintains a list of Canadian courts that maintain online [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/09/site-mentioned-on-slaw-ca/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCC denies leave in &#8220;acrimonious&#8221; trademark discovery</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/09/scc-denies-leave-in-acrimonious-trademark-discovery/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=scc-denies-leave-in-acrimonious-trademark-discovery</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/09/scc-denies-leave-in-acrimonious-trademark-discovery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=739</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave in Osmose-Penotox Inc. v. Société Laurentide Inc. (SCC #34175), where an appeal was sought from the Federal Court of Appeal&#8217;s decision in 2011 FCA 31. The issues in the appeal appear to have been related to the scope of discovery in a bifurcated proceeding. The Federal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2011/09/scc-denies-leave-in-acrimonious-trademark-discovery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

