We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 33

Working at the borders of enforcement

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • February 29 2012

In Canada, there is generally no customs enforcement of IP rights and customs officials have traditionally seen their role as simply collecting the relevant duties

Supreme Court of the United States upholds finding that Microsoft infringes patent held by Toronto-based i4i

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada, USA
  • -
  • June 10 2011

On June 9, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States put an end to a four-year patent battle between Microsoft and Toronto-based i4i

Bilski v. Kappos - was it worth the wait?

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada, USA
  • -
  • July 6 2010

On Monday, June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court released its long awaited decision in Bilski v. Kappos

Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • June 9 2010

On April 1, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in Masterpiece Inc

“Rolling” Anton Piller order set aside: “John Doe” action dismissed - Vinod Chopra Films Private Limited et al. v. John Doe, 2010 FC 387 (Hughes, J.)

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • May 10 2010

This decision concerns a review of a "rolling" Anton Piller order granted by the Federal Court of Canada in a copyright infringement case to an Indian film production company and its Canadian licensee against various un-named persons who (according to the claim) "deal in counterfeit video recordings."

Patentable? The issue of software and business methods

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada, USA
  • -
  • May 10 2010

When should software and business methods be patentable, if ever?

Disclaimers in Canada

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • May 10 2010

In Canada, under s48(1) of the Patent Act, a patentee can disclaim portions of an issued patent if "by mistake, accident or inadvertence, and without any willful intent to defraud or mislead the public", the patentee has "made a specification too broad, claiming more that that of which the patentee was the inventor

Obviousness under Canadian law

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • April 7 2010

Canada has recently adopted “obvious to try” with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc. (PLAVIX) in late 2008

A small step forward in resolving the uncertainty of the patentability of business methods in Canada: Amazon.com 1-Click appeal moves forward

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • February 25 2010

The uncertainty surrounding the patentability of business methods in Canada took a small step toward resolution last month as the federal government submitted its written arguments in the pending Federal Court appeal of the Canadian Patent Office's Patent Appeal Board decision rejecting Amazon

Fines for false marking clarified in Forest Group v. Bon Tool Co. but beware of marking trolls

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 29 2010

Statutory false marking, under 35 U.S.C. 292 of the U.S. Patent Act, is the act of marking an article or product to suggest patent protection with an intent to deceive the public when, in fact, no such patent protection exists

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy