The United States Supreme Court has released its decision in Samsung v. Apple regarding the damages for design infringement. Finding in favour of Samsung, the court held that in the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a §289 damages award need not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product. The $399 million damages award was reversed and the proceeding remanded back to the Federal Circuit.
For those interested, the Fifth Annual Patent Colloquium at the new law building at UofT is a month away on Friday, November 4th. There will be panel discussions on early stage claim construction, independence of experts, non-infringing alternatives, among other topics.
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).
My recent column on the use of experts in patent cases was published last week on Slaw.ca. It touches on some of the recent developments in this area including the updated guidelines on experimental testing, blinding of experts and number of experts in bifurcated proceedings. Continue reading Patent Experts
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision today in Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc. relating to the ability of district courts to award treble damages in patent infringement proceedings, rejecting limits arising from Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit decisions.
CIPO has opened consultations on proposed fees for various steps under upcoming amended Patent and Trademark rules. These steps include fees per Nice Classifications and renewal fees for trademarks and correction, after-allowance amendments and late fees for patents. The consultation is open until July 5, 2016.
The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave today in AstraZeneca Canada Inc., et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al. (Esomeprazole), which considers, among other things, the promised utility doctrine in Canada. More details below.
For those following Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario’s challenge to the validity of certain gene patents in the Federal Court (T-2249-14 – see earlier post), CHEO has announced a settlement: “the patent holder Transgenomic has agreed to provide CHEO and all other Canadian public sector hospitals and laboratories the right to test Canadians for Long QT syndrome on a not-for-profit basis”.