On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision which ruled against the patenting of isolated DNA sequences in their natural form in the now infamous case involving Myriad Genetics, Inc. and the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The decision represents a major milestone in the legal treatment of biotechnological inventions, and presents a number of relevant […]
The International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP) was founded in Geneva in July 1981, with the support and assistance of the World Intellectual Property Organization. This professional academic association now includes hundreds of intellectual property professors and researchers from around the world.
Watch out, patent trolls – the Attorney General of Vermont is coming to get you. Vermont recently became the first US state to enact an anti-“patent trolling” law.
Last month, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) denied leave to appeal in the case Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Novopharm Ltd, passing on an opportunity to clarify the controversial “promise of the patent” utility requirement for Canadian pharmaceutical patents.
Gift cards are everywhere. They are in envelopes as gifts for your friends on their birthdays. They are in your own wallet for your favourite stores. Gift cards are also in the United States Court of Appeals.
There have been many high profile court cases of patent infringement in the past year, culminating in a headline-topping $1 billion award for Apple against Samsung. Even with massive awards like this, at the end of the day, has the patent system produced a net benefit for Apple and the smartphone industry as a whole?
Earlier this month, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its annual “Special 301 Report,” which evaluates the intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement of its trading partners. Over the last few years, Canada has been listed on the “Priority Watch List”, which is reserved for countries that have the most deficient IP protection […]
It was thought until quite recently that any applicant for a Canadian patent had to disclose in his specification the best mode then known of working his invention (Minerals Separation North American Corp. v. Noranda Mines Ltd., [1947] Ex. C.R. 306, rev’d (1952) 69 R.P.C. 81 (P.C.)). Then came Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., […]
We are now accepting submissions for our fifth annual writing challenge. The winner from each category will receive a prize of $1000 (CAD), publication on the IP Osgoode website, and consideration for publication in the Canadian Intellectual Property Review and/or the Intellectual Property Journal. The deadline to submit is 5pm, Monday July 1, 2013. Submissions […]
IP Osgoode and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) would like to thank everyone who participated in our IP commercialization conference, entitled “Sparking Innovation With Students: Examining The Student Role From Invention To Commercialization”. The conference examined the role of student researchers in commercializing IP and the different policies that have been adopted to provide for […]