CIRA has announced that they are implementing a new set of policies and rules for domain name disputes. The new CDRP includes changes to the meaning of “use”, “confusingly similar” and “bad faith” along with a host of other changes and will come into force August 22, 2011.
While we wait for the judgment from the Federal Court of Appeal in the Amazon.com proceeding on the patentability of business methods, I thought I would post a few remaining items from the case.
In decision released yesterday, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the application of s.73(1)(a) ‘good faith’ under the Patent Act and held that “Its operation is extinguished once the patent issues.” (PDF of decision) Dimock Stratton represented two of the respondents in the case and has a summary available.
I was away last week on vacation and unfortunately my computer failed while I was away. It is up and running now and today’s email should include all the updates for the past week. Sorry for the interruption!
In a decision published yesterday, Justice Crampton of the Federal Court denied Astrazeneca’s request for an interlocutory injunction against Apotex. The decision is Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2011 FC 505 (Esomeprazole) in T-1668-10 and follows a PM(NOC) proceeding in which Apotex’s allegations of invalidity against at least some of the patents were found justified (T-371-08). The decision has already been appealed and the appeal dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal (A-180-11).
Professor Norman Siebrasse of University of New Brunswick and author of the Sufficient Description blog, has an interesting discussion of the test for an interlocutory injunction in the context of this decision.
The U.S. House and Senate have now both passed patent reform legislation which would make the U.S. patent system first-to-file. Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Hyatt (relating to appeals from the USPTO) and Caraco v. Novo Nordisk (relating to FDA patent listings).
Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would be hearing the appeal in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. The Amazon.com hearing before the Federal Court of Appeal is scheduled for tomorrow in Toronto.
In a decision published today, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision striking the plaintiff’s further amended statement of claim on the basis that it did not provide sufficient details of the defendant’s activity that would constitute infringement. The Court upheld the view that the allegations were not on any knowledge or evidence of the plaintiff of the defendant’s activities and the plaintiff hoped to fill in the gaps in its knowledge through discovery. Continue reading Particulars needed for pleading patent infringement
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Microsoft v. i4i (PDF) and held in favour of i4i, upholding the “clear and convincing evidence” standard of evidence needed overcome the presumption of validity in an issued patent. Continue reading US Supreme Court rules on presumption of validity