Intervenor Promise

The Supreme Court of Canada granted intervenor status on the six motions to intervene in the ‘promise doctrine’ proceeding: Innovative Medicines Canada and BIOTECanada (jointly); the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP); the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA); the Fédération internationale des conseils en propriété intellectuelle (FICPI); the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC). See my earlier post on the intervenors and their materials. Continue reading Intervenor Promise

Intervenor Promise

The Supreme Court of Canada will be hearing AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. on November 8, 2016 on the promised utility doctrine. Several intervenors have now filed materials on the promise doctrine: Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC), International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI), Innovative Medicines Canada, BioteCanada, Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP) and Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA).

Continue reading Intervenor Promise

US Decisions

Over the past week, there have been several interesting decisions relating to IP issued in the US. In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the rule for cost shifting in copyright litigation. In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the U.S. Supreme Court approved of the USPTO applying ‘broadest reasonable construction’ during IPR proceedings and that the initiation of an IPR was non-reviewable. Earlier today, in Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., the CAFC permitted continuation application to be filed on the same day as the grant date of the parent.

Canadian Intellectual Property