There were a couple of decisions from the last several days that may be of interest:
AstraZeneca AB & Anor v KRKA dd Novo Mesto & Anor[2015] EWCA Civ 484 – The Court of Appeal in the UK upheld the award of £27 million damages in favour of a generic for an interim injunction that was ultimately dissolved for esomeprazole.
Garcia v. Google – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision (PDF), reversed its earlier panel decision and held that an actor in a controversial film was not entitled to a preliminary decision removing the film from YouTube on the basis that the law and facts did not clearly favour her claim to copyright and her showing of irreparable harm.
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. – The United States Supreme Court held that a defendant’s belief regarding patent invalidity is not a defence to an induced infringement claim.
Bill C-59, entitled An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, was introduced today to implement portions of the budget. The proposed changes include amendments to:
Copyright Act – term of sound recording and performance rights;
Patent Act – privilege for patent agents, force majeure, correcting errors and other changes;
Trade-marks Act – privilege for trade-mark agents, force majeure, correcting errors;
Industrial Designs Act – force majeure, correcting errors.
Proposed amendments to the PM(NOC) Regulations have been published in the Canada Gazette Part I, relating to the listing of patents claiming single medicinal ingredients found in combination drugs. The government indicated its plans to make these amendments in the fall of 2014, following Court decisions in Gilead and Viiv.
Today, as part of its budget announcement the government indicated its plans to amend the Patent Act, Trade-marks Act and Industrial Design Act to provide statutory privilege for confidential communications with agents and permit CIPO to extend deadlines in cases of force majeure. The government also plans to amend the Copyright Act to implement and accede to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled and to extend the term of protection of sound recordings and performances for an additional 20 years.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada issued an oral judgment at the hearing of Sanofi’s appeal in the ramipril Section 8 proceeding, dismissing the appeal with costs.
On Monday, April 20th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Sanofi-Aventis’ appeal in Apotex’s Ramipril proceeding pursuant to Section 8 of the Patented Medicine (Notice of Compliance Regulations). The appeal is from the March 2014 split decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in 2014 FCA 68 relating to among other things the ‘hypothetical world’, the ramp-up period and non-indicated uses.
Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments (link) on two patent cases:
Commil USA v. Cisco Systems (13-896) relating to whether a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid is a defence to induced infringement; and
Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises (13-720) relating to whether the 1964 decision in Brulotte which held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se“, should be overruled.
The government has posted its counter memorial regarding Eli Lilly’s NAFTA arbitration of Canada’s ‘promise utility doctrine’. The next phase, according to the proceeding’s schedule, is the production of documents.
BlackBerry tops the list once again for receiving the most Canadian patents in the past year. The others in the top five for 2014 were Qualcomm, P&G, General Electric and Schlumberger. Approximately 23,000 Canadian patents were granted last year to approximately 9500 applicants.
Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva v. Sandoz regarding the standard of review on claim construction. A majority held that rather than a de novo review, the Court of Appeals must review claim construction for ‘clear error’.