sniP/ITs Blog Monthly Review – September & October 2012
FCA Describes Specificity Requirements for Listing Patents on the Patent Register
By Steven Tanner on October 25th, 2012
The Federal Court of Appeal has clarified that there must be a "high threshold of consistency" between the content of a new drug submission and a patent’s claims in order for the patent to be listed on the patent register pursuant to section 4(2)(a) of the PM(NOC) Regulations.
This decision, Gilead Sciences Canada Inc. v. The Minister of Health and The Attorney General of Canada, 2012 FCA 254(Gilead), presents additional challenges for innovative pharmaceutical companies seeking to protect new innovations by listing patents on the patent register.
You are involved in a foreign case and want to examine an inventor of a patent. Just one problem: the inventor lives in Canada. Can you compel the inventor’s testimony for use in your foreign proceeding? Yes! And here’s how.
The CRTC has issued two sets of interpretative guidelines addressing important parts of Canada’s new anti-spam law (CASL). While guidance on CASL is welcome, these guidelines reinforce the great lengths to which many businesses will need to go to in order to ensure compliance.
The guidelines focus on the CRTC’s interpretation of the regulations it released in March, 2012 and the related provisions of CASL, and provide examples of what the CRTC considers to be compliant behavior.
La pentalogie du droit d’auteur de la Cour suprême
By Natacha Engel on September 26th, 2012
De toute évidence, 2012 constitue une année marquante pour le droit d’auteur. Peu après la sanction royale du projet de loi C-11 sur la modernisation du droit d’auteur en juin 2012, la Cour suprême rend cinq décisions en droit d’auteur se prononçant sur l’octroi de redevances.
Responding to Canadian Patent Office Objections: Proof of Utility — Section 2 of the Patent Act
By Lisa Melanson on September 14th, 2012
In a typical objection, the patent examiner asserts that the claimed composition of matter, while novel and non-obvious, cannot be patented because the application’s description fails to prove the utility of all claimed embodiments.
The recent decision Townsend v. Sun Life Financial adds to the emerging case law on privacy damage awards under Section 16 of Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. In Townsend, the Court refused to award to damages to Mr. Townsend, who had alleged that Sun Life disclosed his medical information to a third party without his consent and had failed to safeguard his personal information. The Court determined that the breach was minor, that Mr. Townsend suffered no injury and that Sun Life promptly and effectively corrected its errors.