The B.C. Supreme Court released a decision last week in Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership v. Rogers Communications Inc., 2011 BCSC 1196 involving allegations that Zoocasa improperly scraped content from Century 21’s online real estate listings. In a lengthy decision, the court dismissed the claim for trespass to chattels, granted nominal damages for breach of the website’s terms of use and awarded statutory damages in favour of the individual plaintiffs for copyright infringement.
The Patent Appeal Board at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office has released four more decisions. This is in addition to the 6 decisions that were posted late last month and follows a long period where no decisions had been posted for some time.
The decisions released yesterday are:
1313 (PDF) (2011-04-14) – Patent Application No. 2121906 – E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company – In a short decision the PAB considered novelty and the patentability of soybean products and concluded that amended claims submitted by the applicant were allowable.
1314 (PDF) (2011-04-18) – Patent Application No. 2407304 – Genentech, Inc. – The PAB reconvened to further consider the Applicant’s comments after issuing its decision in #1307 in November 2010. The Applicant alleged that it had not been able to fully address two issues. The PAB upheld its earlier decision but allowed amendments to address the rejection. The claims were directed to antibodies defined in terms of the target polypeptides.
1315 (PDF) (2011-07-11) – Patent Application No. 2161785 – Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Children’s Medical Center Corporation – The claims, primarily directed to bio-compatible, biodegradable cross-linkable hydrogel to deliver cells into a patient such that an organ equivalent is eventually created, had been rejected as being broader than the description and the PAB reversed the examiner allowing the claims.
1316 (PDF) (2011-07-14) – Patent Application No. 2383007 – Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics S.R.L. – After a final rejection, the applicant had voluntarily amended the claims to address most of the objections and at the time the PAB hearing was scheduled, further agreed to cancel the remaining problematic claims. The PAB allowed the amendments under Patent Rules, 31(c).
On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leavewill be announcing whether it will grant leave in three related proceedings primarily relating to the validity of a selection patent. Apotex (SCC #34067), Genpharm (#34068) and Cobalt (#34066) are seeking leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in 2010 FCA 320. That decision held that Lundbeck’s patent CA1,339,452 was a valid patent for the purposes of a PM(NOC) prohibition order. Continue reading SCC denies leave on selection patent proceedings→
CIPO posted a disclaimer this week about its Practice Notices suggesting that the notices “should not be quoted as, or considered to be, a legal authority.”
In a decision released yesterday, the Federal Court of Appeal has allowed Apotex’s appeal and held that Pfizer’s 132 Patent relating to latanoprost “fails to meet the requirements for sound prediction.”
The Office of Patented Medicines and Liaison (OPML) within Health Canada released proposed revisions to its PM(NOC) Guidance Document relating to administrative new drug submissions and administrative abbreviated new drug submissions.
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision of Justice Gauthier in the decision Phostech v. Valence2011 FCA 237 (PDF) finding that the trial judge made no error in construing the claim to find the patent valid and infringed.
Earlier today, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in CyberSource Corporation v. Retail Decisions, Inc. (PDF), that a Beauregard claim directed to a credit card anti-fraud invention was invalid under s.101 as non-patentable subject-matter.
Last week, in Tucows.Com Co. v. Lojas Renner, 2011 ONCA 548, the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that a domain name was “personal property in Ontario” for the purposes of jurisdiction under Rule 17.02(a) after a UDRP proceeding had already been started.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkNo