Markwell Clarizio LLP

patents

Federal Court Makes Rare Holding that Patent Claims are Invalid for Ambiguity

Co-authored by Emily Papsin The Federal Court recently held (per McHaffie J.) that the impugned claims of two related patents for an additive manufacturing process (3D printing) were invalid and not infringed because an essential element (“depletion layer”) was ambiguous. Tekna Plasma Systems Inc. v. AP&C Advanced Powders & Coatings Inc., 2024 FC 871 Background […]

Federal Court Makes Rare Holding that Patent Claims are Invalid for Ambiguity Read More »

Federal Court Grants an Application to Add Inventors and an Owner to an Issued Patent

 On May 31, 2024, the Federal Court (Tsimberis J.) granted an application to correct the inventorship of an issued patent. The decision provides a clear explanation of the relevant legal principles (Patent Act, s. 52) and the type of evidence that must be led to obtain relief. Smith Sport Optics, Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of

Federal Court Grants an Application to Add Inventors and an Owner to an Issued Patent Read More »

Red Maple Manufacturing Inc. v. Red Maple Bio Inc. 2024 FC 817

On May 29, 2024, the Federal Court (Whyte Nowak J.) granted Red Maple Manufacturing Inc.’s (the “Applicant”) appeal pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Trademarks Act. The Applicant appealed a decision from the Trademarks Opposition Board (“the Board”) ordering the removal of certain goods from the Applicant’s Trademark Registration. Red Maple Manufacturing Inc. v. Red

Red Maple Manufacturing Inc. v. Red Maple Bio Inc. 2024 FC 817 Read More »

Markwell Clarizio LLP is a Contributor to the Chambers Life Sciences 2024 Global Practice Guide

Chambers and Partners has recently published its 2024 Life Sciences Global Practice Guide. Markwell Clarizio LLP is very pleased to have been invited to be the exclusive author of the Canadian sections of this comprehensive practice guide which is considered the “definitive global law guide offering comparative analysis from top ranked lawyers”. In the Canadian

Markwell Clarizio LLP is a Contributor to the Chambers Life Sciences 2024 Global Practice Guide Read More »

Federal Court of Appeal Interprets “Use” in Section 42 of the Patent Act

The Federal Court of Appeal (per Heckman J.A.) dismissed an appeal by Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd. and Steelhead LNG Limited Partnership (collectively, “Steelhead”) from a summary trial judgment dismissing Steelhead’s patent infringement action. This appeal turned on the meaning of “use” under section 42 of the Patent Act. Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd v Arc Resources

Federal Court of Appeal Interprets “Use” in Section 42 of the Patent Act Read More »

The “Due Care” Standard for Patent Reinstatement in Canada: A Very High Bar

The Federal Court (per Furlanetto J.) has held that the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) acted reasonably in denying a request for reinstatement of a patent that lapsed due to non-payment of an annual maintenance fee. This decision underscores the importance of having multiple lines of communication between a patent agent and a client – and

The “Due Care” Standard for Patent Reinstatement in Canada: A Very High Bar Read More »

Claims to Dosing Regimens May Not Be Prohibited Methods of Medical Treatment: A Question of “Whether” and “How”

In Pharmascience v Janssen, the Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing for the Court) held that the claims in Janssen’s patent to a dosing regimen are not prohibited as a method of medical treatment. Pharmascience v Janssen, 2024 FCA 23   The Prohibition Against Patenting Methods of Medical Treatment The patentability of methods of

Claims to Dosing Regimens May Not Be Prohibited Methods of Medical Treatment: A Question of “Whether” and “How” Read More »

Snowplow Patents are Snowed Under due to Federal Court Findings of Obviousness

The Federal Court (per St-Louis J.) held that the asserted claims of three patents owned by Nordik Blades (collectively, the “Nordik Patents”) are invalid on the basis of obviousness. However, the Court found that the asserted claims are not overbroad and the Nordik Patents are not void under section 53 of the Patent Act. The

Snowplow Patents are Snowed Under due to Federal Court Findings of Obviousness Read More »

Federal Court Finds Takeda’s Patent Not infringed and Invalid for Inutility and Insufficiency

The Federal Court (per Furlanetto J.) held that Takeda’s 916 Patent covering aspects of its DEXILANT® capsules is not infringed by Apotex’s proposed generic dexlansoprazole capsules and, in any event, is invalid for inutility (lack of sound prediction) and insufficiency. Takeda Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. – Federal Court (fct-cf.gc.ca) The Court’s infringement and validity

Federal Court Finds Takeda’s Patent Not infringed and Invalid for Inutility and Insufficiency Read More »

Generic Manufacturers Induce Patent Infringement by Recommending Use of a Patented Dosing Regimen in their Product Monographs

In Apotex v Janssen (2024 FCA 9) and Pharmascience v Janssen (2024 FCA 10), the Federal Court of Appeal held that Apotex and Pharmascience would induce patent infringement by recommending that their respective generic products be sold and used according to the dosing regimen claimed in Janssen’s 335 Patent. Apotex Inc. v. Janssen Inc. –

Generic Manufacturers Induce Patent Infringement by Recommending Use of a Patented Dosing Regimen in their Product Monographs Read More »