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

Intellectual Property


Tuesday, July 04, 2017 @ 8:37 AM

PATENTS - Defences to infringement - Lack of essential element - Procedure - Evidence - Costs - Assessment or fixing of costs

Appeal by OrthoArm Incorporated (Orthoarm) from the dismissal of its action against GAC International, LLC (GAC). OrthoArm’s principal invented a type of “self-ligating” orthodontic bracket. OrthoArm patented the bracket, and in 1997, licensed the worldwide rights to manufacture, use, market and sell products covered by the patent to GAC. Under the parties’ agreement, OrthoArm was entitled to receive a licence fee based on net sales of GAC’s products until the patent expired in May 2014. ... [read more]

Friday, June 30, 2017 @ 1:38 PM

PATENTS - Criteria for patent protection - Utility - Doctrine of sound prediction - Invalidity of patent

Appeal by AstraZeneca Canada Inc., AstraZeneca Aktiebolag and AstraZeneca UK Limited (collectively, “AstraZeneca”) from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal which declared its 2,139,653 patent (“Patent”) invalid for want of utility. ... [read more]

Friday, June 30, 2017 @ 12:31 PM

Hi-Tech: 3D printing and the law | Luigi Benetton

The costs and technical sophistication associated with 3D printing currently keep it in the realm of industry and enthusiasts. That doesn’t mean the legal community can afford to ignore it. ... [read more]

Friday, June 30, 2017 @ 12:06 PM

Updated: SCC revamps patent utility standard by scrapping 'promise doctrine' Malcolm Rowe

In a patentee-friendly revamp of Canada’s patent utility standard, the Supreme Court has ruled that the “promise of the patent” doctrine is “not good law” and should no longer be used as a yardstick to assess whether a patent for an invention discloses sufficient utility under s. 2 of the Patent Act. ... [read more]

Wednesday, June 28, 2017 @ 6:33 PM

SCC backs novel global ‘takedown order’ blocking Google search results worldwide Robbie Fleming

In a controversial 7-2 decision said to be a global first, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a B.C. court’s Internet “takedown order” that requires Google to block from its worldwide search results certain websites alleged to be selling equipment based on the pirated intellectual property of a Canadian company. ... [read more]

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 @ 8:52 AM

COPYRIGHT - Procedure - Discovery - Documents

Appeal by movie producers from an order requiring Rogers Communications (Rogers) to disclose identifying information of a customer to them, but only after the appellants paid Rogers’ fee. The appellants commenced a proposed reverse class action claiming declaratory and injunctive relief against unknown individuals for copyright infringement. The appellants alleged that the unknown individuals engaged in illegal file sharing over the internet, thereby infringing their copyrights in several films. The appellants sought an order requiring Rogers to disclose the identifying information of one infringer to them. Rogers did not oppose the disclosure, but submitted that it should be paid reasonable compensation and costs, which it submitted was $100 per hour of work plus HST. The motions judge allowed the motion and ordered Rogers to disclose the information. It also ordered the appellants to pay an hourly fee of $100 plus HST. The motions judge found that the appellants had a right to have the identity of the subscriber revealed and disclosed for the purpose of pursuing their proposed class proceeding. He further found that Rogers was entitled to be compensated for providing such disclosure to the applicants. The appellants appealed the order, arguing that there were tens of thousands of suspected infringers whose identifying information could only be had by paying the same fee. They argued that Rogers’ fee and the court approval of it posed a multi-million dollar barrier between them and the start of legal proceedings that were necessary to protect their rights. ... [read more]

Monday, June 19, 2017 @ 8:51 AM

U of T law students put their trust in science Aled Edwards

Scientists have discovered when they are looking to resolve thorny intellectual property problems they should look to the University of Toronto. ... [read more]

Monday, June 05, 2017 @ 8:17 AM


Appeal by Suthanthiran, Best Theratronics (Best) and Best Medical Belgium (BMB) from a sending order granted in favour of the Belgian government. Suthanthiran was the founder and owner of Best, which was in the business of cancer diagnosis and treatment. Best manufactured cyclotrons, machines that produced radioactive isotopes for use in radiation therapy. Belgian authorities sought Canada’s assistance in investigating whether three transactions, involving a loan and the purchase and sale of two cyclotrons, were criminal offences in Belgium. The Attorney General of Canada obtained a search warrant for Best’s offices in Canada for records relating to the alleged criminal transactions. The premises were searched and records were seized. Suthanthiran claimed that the records seized contained a vast array of commercially sensitive information, valuable to Best’s competitors, but of little value in the criminal prosecution. Belgium sought a sending order. Best wanted the order tailored to ensure that a state-owned competitor of Best did not get access to the commercially sensitive information. The sending order was granted, without any conditions restricting access to the documents to those involved in the criminal prosecution. The sending hearing judge found no evidence that Belgium was acting in bad faith or that the Request for assistance was part of a conspiracy to obtain intellectual property belonging to Suthanthiran and Best. The sending hearing judge also found that Suthanthiran’s concerns were answered by the mutual legal assistance treaty between Canada and Belgium which precluded Belgium from disclosing or using the information sent, except for the purpose of the criminal fraud investigation, without the prior consent of the Minister of Justice. ... [read more]

Thursday, June 01, 2017 @ 3:11 PM

Hi-Tech: 3D printing opens up IP can of worms | Luigi Benetton

Three-dimensional printing can be used to create all sorts of physical objects, from small toys to entire houses. Whole economies may be transformed if it’s cheaper to print products near where they’re sold instead of importing from faraway lands, and the effects on society don’t end there. Three-dimensional printing is also called additive manufacturing. It shapes raw materials into the desired form without the waste caused by subtractive manufacturing, or machining, where machines cut pieces of raw material to create objects. ... [read more]

Thursday, May 25, 2017 @ 8:47 AM

OIL AND GAS - Exploration - Survey - Seismic survey - Offshore

Appeal by Geophysical Service Incorporated (GSI) from the dismissal of its claims against multiple parties for unlawful disclosure and copyright infringement. GSI conducted offshore seismic studies and licensed its data for a fee to third parties for resource exploration. The regulatory regime pursuant to which GSI collected seismic data required it to obtain licences and authorizations from the National Energy Board and Newfoundland and Nova Scotia offshore petroleum boards. GSI was obliged to submit the data it acquired to the boards. After certain privilege periods expired, the boards permitted third parties to access and copy seismic data in their possession. GSI took the position that unfettered copying was not permitted by the regulatory regime, and that the boards were wrongfully permitting oil and gas companies to acquire valuable data without licensing the data from GSI or without paying GSI for the data. GSI took the position that third party commercial copying companies were thereby breaching its copyright to the acquired and retained seismic data. In dismissing GSI’s action against the boards, various oil and gas companies and companies involved in copying data, the court conducted a historical review of the regime and found that there had been a regulated process for obtaining permits coupled with a requirement to submit data to various regulatory bodies, and that this data had been made available for disclosure to the public after a certain period of time without compensation to the seismic data owners. The court was of the view that the Canada Petroleum Resources Act expressly affected GSI’s rights in its data once the five-year privilege period expired. The court found that the specificity of the regime trumped the more general legislative scheme governing copyright. ... [read more]