Tag Archives: Patents

Budget Changes

Introduced yesterday, budget bill C-86 includes changes to the Patent Act, Trade-marks Act, Copyright Act, enacts the College of Patent Agents and Trade-mark Agents Act and makes changes for IP licenses in insolvency. Some highlights include a college to regulate agents, reform of the Copyright Board, allows patent file histories to be admissible to rebut claim constructions, add bad faith as a ground of opposition for trademarks, and adds requirements for notices under the notice-and-notice copyright regime.

Continue reading Budget Changes

Happy World IP Day

A number of interesting announcements on World IP Day. The focus of the international focus on IP was on Powering change: Women in innovation and creativity. In Canada, the government announced a National IP Strategy having a number of components including $85.3 million over five years to help Canadian businesses, creators, entrepreneurs and innovators understand, protect and access IP. Announced for IP tools, was more efficient dispute resolution and tariff setting at the Federal Court (more judges) and Copyright Board through more funding, formation of a patent collective, improvements to IP used in standards-setting processes, and an IP-specific marketplace. Announced legislative changes include:

  • establishing minimum requirements for patent demand letters;
  • excluding settlement demands from the copyright Notice and Notice regime;
  • Requiring ‘use’ of a trademark to enforce it within the first three years;
  • affirming the patent research exemption;
  • clarifying the role of standard essential patents;
  • allowing continued use of IP by licensees in liquidation proceedings; and
  • creating a College of Patent and Trademark Agents to regulate agents.

In Europe, the UK announced today that it had ratified the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement.

Continue reading Happy World IP Day

IPRs

The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC (link), where a majority found that the USPTO’s inter partes reviews (IPRs) were constitutional. In the proceeding, the petitioner had argued that actions to revoke a patent must be tried in an Article III court before a jury, rather than through an administrative procedure.

Continue reading IPRs