The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. on patent exhaustion reversing the en banc decision of the CAFC.
This case presents two questions about the scope of the patent exhaustion doctrine: First, whether a patentee that sells an item under an express restriction on the purchaser’s right to reuse or resell the product may enforce that restriction through an infringement lawsuit. And second, whether a patentee exhausts its patent rights by selling its product outside the United States, where American patent laws do not apply. We conclude that a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose or the location of the sale.(link)
In a decision released earlier this year, Frac Shack Inc. v. AFD Petroleum Ltd., 2017 FC 104, the defendant was found to infringe several of the claims in a patent relating to a fuel delivery system used for hot refuelling equipment used for hydraulic fracturing. The court ordered a 27% royalty rate for sales made prior to the grant of the patent at issue and did not consider a manual process as being a non-infringing alternative. My article on this decision was published by Slaw. Continue reading Reasonable Royalties and Non-Infringing Alternatives→
The United States Supreme Court has issued a couple of intellectual property decisions this week:
Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. where a majority found a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work—either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression—if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated. The particular facts related to cheerleading uniforms.
As mentioned on Friday, the NAFTA arbitration tribunal in the Eli Lilly ‘promise doctrine’ proceeding has issued a ruling. The public decision is now available confirming that the tribunal decided in favour of Canada on the merits. The decision addresses issues of jurisdiction, liability for judicial measures and Canada’s utility requirements for patents. Continue reading NAFTA→
The NAFTA arbitration tribunal in the Eli Lilly ‘promise doctrine’ proceeding has issued a ruling. Reports are that the tribunal has decided in favour of Canada on the merits. Continue reading NAFTA→
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear oral arguments in AstraZeneca Canada Inc., et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al. (Esomeprazole) relating to the ‘promise doctrine’ of patent utility.
Bill C-30 has been introduced to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Europe. The Bill includes amendments to the Patent Act, regarding supplementary protection for pharmaceutical products and altering the PM(NOC) procedure, and to the Trade-mark Act regarding geographic indicators with grounds of opposition and certain exceptions for prior use, acquired rights and generic terms. Amendments are also proposed to a number of other acts. Continue reading CETA Implementation→
The Supreme Court of Canada granted intervenor status on the six motions to intervene in the ‘promise doctrine’ proceeding: Innovative Medicines Canada and BIOTECanada (jointly); the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP); the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA); the Fédération internationale des conseils en propriété intellectuelle (FICPI); the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC). See my earlier post on the intervenors and their materials. Continue reading Intervenor Promise→
Starting tomorrow, patent and trademark agents can claim privilege analogous to solicitor-client privilege for communications between the agent and their client, that is intended to be confidential and is made for the purpose of seeking or giving advice relating to the protection of inventions or trademarks. Continue reading Agent Privilege→
Over the past week, there have been several interesting decisions relating to IP issued in the US. In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the rule for cost shifting in copyright litigation. In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the U.S. Supreme Court approved of the USPTO applying ‘broadest reasonable construction’ during IPR proceedings and that the initiation of an IPR was non-reviewable. Earlier today, in Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., the CAFC permitted continuation application to be filed on the same day as the grant date of the parent.
Canadian Intellectual Property
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkNo