<?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</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ippractice.ca/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ippractice.ca</link>
	<description>Canadian Intellectual Property</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:31:34 +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>Top cases cited in IP decisions in 2011</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/top-cases-cited-in-ip-decisions-in-2011/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=top-cases-cited-in-ip-decisions-in-2011</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/top-cases-cited-in-ip-decisions-in-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=932</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Utility, selection patents and sound prediction were key issues identified in an analysis of the cases cited in the 132 IP decisions released in 2011 by the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal. The most cited cases related to standard of review, and from the Supreme Court, the 2008 Sanofi decision, Whirlpool, Consolboard and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/top-cases-cited-in-ip-decisions-in-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</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>SCC decisions</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/scc-decisions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=scc-decisions</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/scc-decisions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:43:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Canada has released a couple of decisions of interest &#8211; Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v.Canada (Health), 2012 SCC 3 relating to trade secrets and access to information of Health Canada drug submissions and Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4 which determined that Internet Service Providers were not &#8216;broadcasters&#8217; under the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/scc-decisions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCC adjourns Sildenafil hearing</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/scc-adjourns-sildenafil-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=scc-adjourns-sildenafil-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/scc-adjourns-sildenafil-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PM(NOC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=918</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing in the appeal of the sildenafil PM(NOC) application on the sufficiency of disclosure. The hearing had been scheduled for tomorrow but is now tentatively scheduled for April 20, 2012. The Supreme Court is hearing the appeal (SCC #33951) from Novopharm v. Pfizer, 2010 FCA 242. The arguments likely [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/scc-adjourns-sildenafil-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter trial decision</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/eurocopter-v-bell-helicopter-trial-decision/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=eurocopter-v-bell-helicopter-trial-decision</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/eurocopter-v-bell-helicopter-trial-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:50:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=963</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Court released a decision earlier this week after the trial in the patent infringement action Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter, 2012 FC 113 finding a claim of the patent valid and infringed. The Court also awarded punitive damages. The decision is available as 2012 FC 113 on the Federal Court Website. The case T-737-08, started in May 2008, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/02/eurocopter-v-bell-helicopter-trial-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Provincial IP decisions &#8211; trade secrets and descriptiveness</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/provincial-cases-trade-secrets-and-descriptiveness/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=provincial-cases-trade-secrets-and-descriptiveness</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/provincial-cases-trade-secrets-and-descriptiveness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quebec Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Secrets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=955</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the Ontario Court, in Paradigm Shift Technologies Inc. v. Alexander Oudovikine, 2012 ONSC 148, the court rejected a motion for an interlocutory injunction on alleged trade secrets held by an ex-employee. In Boulangerie St-Méthode v. Boulangerie Canada Bread, 2012 QCCS 83, the Quebec Court considered distinctiveness and descriptiveness of the mark « sans gras sans [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/provincial-cases-trade-secrets-and-descriptiveness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC on computer claims in DealerTrack</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/cafc-on-computer-claims-in-dealertrack/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cafc-on-computer-claims-in-dealertrack</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/cafc-on-computer-claims-in-dealertrack/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 02:18:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=951</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released a decision today in DealerTrack v. Huber on the patentability of computer claims. It held that claims &#8220;for executing a computer program&#8221; were means-plus-function limited to the algorithms in the specification and &#8220;computer aided&#8221; limitations did not render claims patentable subject matter. In the context [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/cafc-on-computer-claims-in-dealertrack/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ONCA recognizes tort of invasion of privacy</title>
		<link>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/onca-recognizes-tort-of-invasion-of-privacy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=onca-recognizes-tort-of-invasion-of-privacy</link>
		<comments>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/onca-recognizes-tort-of-invasion-of-privacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Macek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Alert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Court of Appeal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ippractice.ca/?p=947</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a decision released today, Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the existence of a cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion under the common law. The Court addressed previous jurisprudence which had held that &#8220;there is no ‘free-standing’ right to dignity or privacy under the Charter or at [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ippractice.ca/2012/01/onca-recognizes-tort-of-invasion-of-privacy/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>
	</channel>
</rss>

