Home » Category: 'Patents' (Page 17)

Patents

An Unexpected Infringement: There and Back Again

On March 16, 2015, Justice Barnes held that AstraZeneca’s Patent No 1,292,693 (“’693 Patent”), a formulation patent for omeprazole, was valid and infringed by Apotex (2015 FC 322). This decision represents the latest entry in the 22-year old cross-jurisdictional Omeprazole saga between AstraZeneca and Apotex. Because the proceedings were bifurcated, a separate reference for damage […]

IP Year in Review 2014 – The Perpetual Motion of IP Law

Giuseppina D’Agostino is the Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, the IP Intensive Program, and the IP Osgoode Innovation Clinic, the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the IPilogue, the Deputy Editor of the Intellectual Property Journal, and an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School.   2014 was another exciting year in intellectual property (IP) law. […]

SEPs and the Swinging Pendulum

American IP scholar Mark Lemley aptly characterized the dynamic relationship between IP and competition law as a swinging pendulum, in which antitrust enforcement of IP has cycled from under-protection to over-protection since the enactment of the Sherman Act in 1890. The United States Supreme Court’s recent affirmation of antitrust scrutiny in patent litigation indicated that […]

The IP Hackathon at Osgoode: Designing Solutions to Make Canada’s Patent System More User-Friendly

On October 23rd and 24th, inventors, law students, lawyers, patent agents, patent portfolio managers, policy analysts, Canadian Intellectual Property Office’s (CIPO) patent examiners and other stakeholders of the patent system convened at Osgoode for the IP Hackathon. Inspired by similar events at Stanford, Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino, the Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, decided to […]

Certainly Commendable but Perhaps not Practical – Canada’s Competition Bureau Releases Guidelines on Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation Settlements

On September 23, Canada’s Competition Bureau (“the Bureau”) announced  landmark guidelines regarding the consideration of pharmaceutical patent litigation settlements under Canada’s competition law framework. The Bureau’s guidelines on this issue were released as part of a white paper titled Patent Litigation Settlement Agreements: A Canadian Perspective. These settlement agreements attract concern from competition regulators due […]

In Proving Foresight May Be Vain: Federal Court Vacates Bifurcation Order Just a Few Months After Granting It

Originating back in 2006, the litigation between Pfizer and Apotex over Pfizer’s blockbuster drug, Lipitor, has been long and arduous. With many twists and turns in these proceedings, Pfizer’s most recent motion to amend its statement of defence and counterclaim led to yet another surprising result. The motion brought by Pfizer is part of the proceedings commenced by Apotex […]

The First Ever IP Hackathon Took Place at Osgoode Hall Law School

Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino, Founder and Director of the Intellectual Property Law & Technology Group (IP Osgoode) at Osgoode Hall Law School, stirred up the IP community yet again with her innovative and invigorating way of “tearing apart the patent system.”

Up the creek without a paddle: downstream exclusion threatens Qualcomm.

With echoes of the blockbuster Apple v Samsung case (see past IPilogue coverage here, here and here), The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) announced on Oct 6th that it will move ahead with a section 337 investigation into patent infringement claims made against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd by NVIDIA Corp. The plaintiff alleges infringement of seven of its patents. This claim could potentially […]

Promises That Can Kill: An Update

Under the Patent Act, an invention must be useful to be patentable. While in Canada the inventor does not need to describe the utility of the invention in the patent, where the patent makes a promise of utility, utility is measured against that promise. If the inventor does not make an explicit promise of a […]

African Patent Offices Not Fit for Purpose

Patents are public documents, issued to inventors by individual states, certifying that the named inventor has been granted a limited monopoly to exclude other persons from working, selling or using an identified invention without the consent or permission of the inventor or her/his assignees or successors-in-title during the lifespan of the patent. The regime of […]