Home » Category: 'Patent Practice' (Page 4)

Patent Practice

The Federal Court Opines In Bartly: A Final Action Is A Final Action

The Federal Court Opines In Bartly: A Final Action Is A Final Action

Amelia Manera is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. In Bartly v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2011 FC 873, a recent decision of the Federal Court, Justice Hughes clarifies that a Final Action by the patent examiner indeed means a final action. In other words, a Final Action is where all application objections […]

A Promise Betrayed? Rethinking the Clerical Natures of IPRs Practice in the Third World

A Promise Betrayed? Rethinking the Clerical Natures of IPRs Practice in the Third World

Ikechi Mgbeoji is an Associate Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School and a member of IP Osgoode. For more than one hundred years, the branch of law known as intellectual property rights (IPRs) has been treated by universities and colleges in the Third World as an after-thought, an appendage to other disciplines of […]

US Court Of Appeals Takes Inequitable Conduct To The Next Level In Therasense v. BD

US Court Of Appeals Takes Inequitable Conduct To The Next Level In Therasense v. BD

Danny Titolo is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. An en banc US Federal Circuit court recently delivered its opinion on inequitable conduct in Therasense, Inc. v Becton, Dickinson & Co. The majority opinion raised the standard for demonstrating an inequitable conduct defence. The new standard now requires an intention to deceive and that […]

Big Losses Loom for Big Pharma

Big Losses Loom for Big Pharma

Dan Whalen is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. The New York Times reported that many of the major players in the global pharmaceutical industry are set to lose exclusive rights to 10 blockbuster drugs of combined annual sales close to US$50 billion. No mere fluke, this news marks the beginning of an […]

"Green" Patent Amendments Now In Force

"Green" Patent Amendments Now In Force

Amendments to the Patent Rules relating to advanced examination of 'green technologies' (s.28(1)(b)) are now in force. The amendments also provide for all applications to leave advanced examination if time limits are extended or the application goes abandoned (s.28(2)). See Canada Gazette, Vol. 145, No. 6, March 16, 2011, and the Canadian Intellectual Property Offfice's […]

Repligen Corp. v. Canada (A.G.): Clerical Error in the Intellectual Property Office

Repligen Corp. v. Canada (A.G.): Clerical Error in the Intellectual Property Office

David Vaver is Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Osgoode Hall Law School and on the Advisory Board of IP Osgoode. A Note in the next issue of the Intellectual Property Journal, due out in April, reviews a recent case on Patent Office refusals to correct clerical errors: Repligen Corp. v. Canada (A.G.) 2010 FC […]