Appeal Watch: Hart, Three s. 8 PM(NOC) Cases and Thamby Denied Leave to Appeal  The Court Won’t Hear Court versus Church Earlier this week, the SCC refused to hear the case of Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Kingston, in Canada  2011 ONCA 728. While the church and the issue may be different, this [...]

In May of 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Teva Canada leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision, Teva v. Pfizer, 2010 FCA 242. At issue is Patent ‘446 (July 2008; expires in 2014), which covers Pfizer’s sildenafil-based drug for treating erectile dysfunction (ED). Pfizer originally patented sildenafil in 1998 to treat [...]

In a previous post on the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bilski v. Kappos (“Bilski”), I discussed how SCOTUS alluded to the possibility that “business methods” could be patented in the United States – a case that did not outline precisely what kinds of business methods entailed protection. Canadian courts, by contrast, had shut the door [...]

On June 28, 2010, the US Supreme Court released its reasons in Bilski et al. v. Kappos, No.08-964 545 F. 3d 943 (PDF link) (“Bilski”). The case was widely followed, in particular, by intellectual property firms, as a decision widely favouring business method patents could have had serious ramifications on the patenting practices of future [...]

Technology giant Microsoft Corp. has made one last-ditch effort to defend a decade-long patent infringement lawsuit against a small Canadian software company, i4i Inc.  Last week, Microsoft filed a petition (PDF link) with the US Supreme Court asking for a final resolution to the dispute.  In the suit, i4i alleges that Microsoft used the small [...]

Yesterday, Jeremy Barretto canvassed the SCC’s most recent decision (2008 SCC 61) concerning selection patents.  Since Jeremy already surveyed the facts, procedural history, and analyses of the case, I will focus today on the issue of obviousness, noting some distinctions between the obviousness standard set out in the Apotex decision with the latest American decision [...]

On Thursday November 6, 2008 the SCC released its decision in Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc., 2008 SCC 61. This intellectual property case involves a dispute over selection patents between Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”), a generic drug manufacturer, and Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc (“Sanofi”) who held the original patent. TheCourt published a summary of the Federal [...]

In Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a genetically modified mouse was not a patentable invention under the Patent Act. Harvard College had created a genetically modified mouse, known as the “oncomouse,” that was particularly susceptible to developing cancer, and thus [...]

On Thursday, July 5, 2007, the SCC granted the application for leave to appeal in the case of Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc. et al., an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal. This intellectual property law case deals with the requirements for patent protection. On April 28, 2003, Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc. and Sanofi-Synthelabo [...]