Focus On
NEW In-House Counsel | Insurance | Intellectual Property | Immigration | Natural Resources | Real Estate | Tax

Intellectual Property

Latest

Thursday, May 18, 2017 @ 02:29 PM

Langlois launches legal services program for startups

Langlois lawyers has announced the launch of L-inc. Project, a legal services program for innovative, growing startups. ... [read more]

Thursday, May 18, 2017 @ 09:06 AM

Growing pains: The emerging role of IP in selling Canadian cannabis

Licensed producers and others looking to enter Canada’s medical or recreational cannabis industry should be thinking about how they will distinguish their business, products and services from others, in what will undoubtedly become a crowded and competitive marketplace. Intellectual property protection available under Canadian and foreign laws should be an important part of that strategy. ... [read more]

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 @ 03:39 PM

Hi-Tech: Printers invaluable but can be targeted by hackers | Luigi Benetton

Welcome to part two in a two-part series on the role of printers in law firms. In the first instalment, we discussed what firms want in printers. Today we’ll look at keeping printers safe from hackers. ... [read more]

Monday, May 08, 2017 @ 02:59 PM

Former Supreme Court justice joins Osler

Marshall Rothstein, former justice with the Supreme Court of Canada, is joining Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP's Vancouver office. ... [read more]

Thursday, May 04, 2017 @ 08:30 AM

PATENTS - Criteria for patent protection - Non-obviousness - Inventive ingenuity - Procedure - Appeals

Appeal by Bristol-Myers Squibb from a ruling finding its 736 Patent invalid on the basis of obviousness. The appellant acquired rights to the atazanavir molecule, a complex molecule used to treat the HIV virus and AIDS. The molecule was the subject of a 1997 patent application granted in 2006 under the 840 Patent to Novartis. In 1998, the appellant filed a patent application in respect of a salt of atazanavir on the basis its superior bioavailability made it useful in formulation of an oral dosage. The appellant was granted the 736 Patent in 2004. The respondent, Teva Canada, commenced proceedings under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. The Federal Court ruled that the 736 Patent was invalid for obviousness and rejected the appellant's application for a writ of prohibition. The appellant appealed. ... [read more]

Tuesday, May 02, 2017 @ 10:34 AM

Osler hosts IP seminar for emerging companies

Join Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP partner Nathaniel Lipkus for a lunch and learn seminar on intellectual property from noon to 1 p.m. on May 15 in Toronto. ... [read more]

Monday, May 01, 2017 @ 09:14 AM

Twelve Canadians among 45 promoted globally by Norton Rose Fulbright

Twelve Canadians were among the 45 promotions worldwide announced by global law firm Norton Rose Fullbright, including 41 partners and four promotions to the South African equivalent of director. ... [read more]

Monday, April 24, 2017 @ 08:36 AM

Torys adds partner, counsel to financial services practice

Torys LLP welcomes Jill E. McCutcheon and Kelly Morris to the firm’s financial services practice in Toronto. ... [read more]

Friday, April 21, 2017 @ 10:58 AM

Five Smart & Biggar associates earn trademark agent specialty

Five associates with Smart & Biggar/Fethersonhaugh have passed their qualifying exams and are now registered trademark agents in Canada: Jennifer Ponton, Kevin Unrau, Shirley Liang Komosa, Kevin Siu and Kendra Cann. ... [read more]

Friday, April 21, 2017 @ 10:40 AM

TRADE-MARKS - Opposition - Grounds - Confusion - Totality of the marks test - Material dates

Appeal by Benjamin Moore from a Federal Court decision relating to its trademark registration applications. Benjamin Moore applied to register two trademarks, the word mark BENJAMIN MOORE NATURA and a certain design mark, to be used in association with interior and exterior paints. Home Hardware opposed the applications, asserting that the marks were confusing with nine of Home Hardware’s trademarks that included the term “natura”. Seven of Home Hardware’s marks were registered design marks, while two were unregistered, with registrations pending. One mark, BEAUTI-TONE NATURA, was associated with paint and paint-related products. Home Hardware commenced selling paints using that mark after January 9, 2009, while Benjamin Moore started selling BENJAMIN MOORE NATURA in April 2009. Home Hardware’s oppositions were rejected by the Trade-Marks Opposition Board, because there was no confusion between any of the Benjamin Moore and Home Hardware trademarks at any of the material dates at which confusion was to be determined. On appeal, the Federal Court found that there was confusion between the trademarks, particularly as those marks were used in association with paint. The Benjamin Moore applications for registration were refused. ... [read more]