Patents Archives - Barry Sookman

Artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights: the USPTO DABUS decision

Is an invention autonomously generated by artificial intelligence patentable? This is a question that is being studied including by the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO) which launched an investigation into issues associated with patenting artificial intelligence inventions. In the meantime, the USPTO just released a decision denying the application for a such a patent holding that under the U.S. patent law, 35 USC §§ 1 et seq. an inventor must be a natural person.

The decision was based on an application listing a single inventor with the given name “[DABUS]” and the family name “(Invention generated by artificial intelligence).”…

View Post

Patents

Law and Innovation: Is Intellectual Property a Path to Progress

I had the pleasure of speaking at the Institute for New Economic Thinking and the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) Toronto 2014 Conference called Human After All. The topic of my talk was “Law and Innovation: Is Intellectual Property a Path to Progress”. The speakers with me on the session were Giovanni Dosi, Director, Institute of Economics, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Pisa and Mariana Mazzucato, Professor, University of Sussex. The paper I prepared for the talk is below. (A PDF version of the paper can be accessed here.)…

View Post

Patents

Merck awarded blockbuster damages for Apotex’s patent infringement

In December 2010, the pharmaceutical giant Merck won a major patent case against the generic pharmaceutical maker Apotox. In Merck & Co v Apotex Inc, 2010 FC 1265, 91 CPR (4th) aff’d 2011 FCA 363, 102 CPR (4th) 321, Justice Snider found Merck’s ‘380 patent for the drug lovastatin, a statin sold in Canada under the trade name MEVACOR, was valid and had been infringed. In a decision made public yesterday after a trial to determine damages, Merck & Co v Apotex Inc 2013 FC 751, Justice Snider ordered Apotex to pay Merck more than $180 million dollars in damages and interest.…

View Post

Intellectual Property Law in Canada: Cases and Commentary

I am pleased to announce the publication of the second edition of my IP casebook Intellectual Property Law in Canada: Cases and Commentary.

Written in collaboration with my partners Steven Mason and Dan Glover, this book will be of particular interest to private practitioners, in-house lawyers, law students, law professors and librarians. It includes selections from important cases in intellectual property law including very recent cases from the Supreme Court of Canada and other appellant courts to provide the most up to date and instructive set of materials on IP law in Canada.…

View Post

Patents

Viagra patent declared invalid by Supreme Court of Canada

In an important case released today, Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. 2012 SCC 60, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Pfizer’s patent for its popular drug Viagra used for treating erectile dysfunction was void for not meeting the disclosure requirements in s. 27(3) of the Patent Act.

To satisfy the disclosure requirements, the inventor must disclose his/her invention and describe how it works in the specification. In addition, the inventor must disclose in the specification how “to make the same successful use of the invention as the inventor could at the time of his application”.…

View Post

Social media, intellectual property and the workplace, is there a gap in the law?

I gave a speech earlier today at the Law Society Special Lectures on Employment Law and the New Workplace in the Social Media Age. My talk was entitled, “Is There a Gap in Intellectual Property Law?” My slides are shown below.

Sookman law society IP in social media

View more presentations from bsookman

…

View Post

Patents

Canadian Patent Office allows Amazon.com’s “one-click” patent

Last month the Federal Court of Appeal issued its reasons in the Amazon.com “one-click” patent case. Since the Court of Appeal directed the Commissioner to revisit Amazon.com’s application, it was not clear whether or not the patent was eligible subject matter.[1] The decision of the Court of Appeal left many questions unanswered.

It appears that the Patent Office has now determined that Amazon.com’s patent application, “Method and System For Placing A Purchase Order Via A Communication Network” (Canadian Patent Application No.…

View Post

Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2010-2011)

Here are the slides used in my presentation to the Toronto Computer Lawyers Group earlier today, The Year in Review: Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2010-2011). It covers significant developements since my talk last spring.

The slides include a summary of the following cases and statutory materials:

Privacy:

Cite Cards Canada Inc. v. Pleasance, 2011 ONCA 3

Leon’s Furniture Limited v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2011 ABCA 94

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2010 FC 736

Nammo v.…

View Post

Patents

Amazon files brief to Federal Court of Appeal in the one-click patent case

Amazon filed its responding brief in the “one click” patent appeal. As Amazon notes, “The Appeal raises issues fundamental to the Canadian patent system: (i) the proper approach to patent claims construction, and (ii) the scope of patentable subject matter in Canada.”

The appeal arises out of Amazon’s application for a patent for an invention entitled “Method and System for Placing a Purchase Order Via a Communications Network”. The application relates to a communications network based method and system for placing an order and, more particularly, to a method and system for purchasing and ordering items over the Internet.…

View Post

Subscribe