Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 121

Amendments to Canada’s patent rules to come into force on June 2, 2007

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
May 31 2007

On June 2, 2007, amendments to Canada’s Patent Rules (“Amendments”) will come into force

Federal Court of Appeal ups the ante for patentees litigating under the PM(NOC) Regulations

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
USA
-
May 31 2007

In Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited 2007 FCA 163 the Federal Court of Appeal has decided that a patentee who unsuccessfully challenges an allegation made by a generic drug manufacturer under the PM(NOC) Regulations cannot re-litigate the same allegation made by any subsequent generic drug manufacturer

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.: the United States Supreme Court speaks on patent invalidity for obviousness

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
USA
-
May 31 2007

On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States released its unanimous decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc

Federal Court grants prohibition order: allegations regarding Oxycontin patent not justified

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
September 3 2009

On July 17, 2009, the Federal Court (Harrington J) allowed an application by Purdue Pharma ("Purdue") under section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations and prohibited the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Pharmascience Inc. ("Pharmascience") until after the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,098,738 (the "Patent"

Grey goods may or may not constitute copyright infringement

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
July 30 2007

On July 26, 2007, Canada’s highest court rendered an important decision which will be of interest to those who distribute imported goods in Canada

Google’s AdWords should not be held to infringe trade marks, says Advocate General

Norton Rose LLP
-
European Union
-
September 30 2009

In a blow for brand owners, the legal advisor to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has stated that the Google AdWords system does not infringe third party trade mark rights

The difficulty of proper disclosure for BIO-IT patents

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
September 30 2009

According to the Canadian Patent Act a patent will only be granted if an invention is novel, non-obvious and useful, assuming that the claims define statutory (i.e., patentable) subject matter

Federal Court of Appeal holds that section 8 liability is confined to damages and excludes future losses

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
June 4 2009

At long last, on June 4, 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal rendered its first substantive judgment on section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the "Regulations"

Court of Appeal refers dilution questions to ECJ

Norton Rose LLP
-
United Kingdom
-
June 22 2007

On 15 May the Court of Appeal in Intel Corp Inc v CPM United Kingdom Limited 2007 referred a number of questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that are of crucial importance to owners of well known European brands

Patent invalidity for obviousness: Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal renders an important decision

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
June 25 2007

On June 7, 2007, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal rendered a decision in Novopharm Limited v. Jannsen-Ortho Inc. that dealt with several patent issues, but perhaps most notably the test for obviousness for invalidity of a patent

next >

Search results

Amendments to Canada’s patent rules to come into force on June 2, 2007

Federal Court of Appeal ups the ante for patentees litigating under the PM(NOC) Regulations

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.: the United States Supreme Court speaks on patent invalidity for obviousness

Federal Court grants prohibition order: allegations regarding Oxycontin patent not justified

Grey goods may or may not constitute copyright infringement

Google’s AdWords should not be held to infringe trade marks, says Advocate General

The difficulty of proper disclosure for BIO-IT patents

Federal Court of Appeal holds that section 8 liability is confined to damages and excludes future losses

Court of Appeal refers dilution questions to ECJ

Patent invalidity for obviousness: Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal renders an important decision

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea