Last blog added on Thursday, January 14th, 2021

Information About Sufficient Description

Recent Posts

Below is a preview of the five most recent posts from the blog Sufficient Description. To read these posts in their entirely or subscribe to future updates from this blog, please visit their website!

  • Tensar v Enviro-Pro Affirmed on the Facts

    Tensar Technologies, Limited v Enviro-Pro Geosynthetics, Ltd 2021 FCA 3 Locke JA: Gauthier, de Montigny JJA aff’g 2019 FC 277 Manson J2,491,858At trial, Manson J held that Tensar’s 858 patent was valid but not infringed in a decision that turned primarily on the evidence, as discussed here. The FCA … Read more »

  • The Limits of Anticipation by Speculation

    Teva Canada Innovation v Pharmascience Inc 2020 FC 1158 Kane J2,702,437 / 2,760,802 / glatiramer acetate / Copaxone / Glatect / NOC The patents at issue in this case relate to the use of glatiramer acetate for the treatment of multiple sclerosis [MS]. Glatiramer acetate was known to be effective in … Read more »

  • Prosecution History May Not Be Used to Rebut Representations Made by a Licensee

    Allergan Inc v Sandoz Canada Inc 2020 FC 1189 Crampton CJ2,507,002 / silodosin / RAPAFLO / NOCSection 53.1 of the Patent Act permits the use of prosecution history in claim construction in certain circumstances. In this decision, Crampton CJ held that s 53.1 only permits use of prosecution history t … Read more »

  • Reconciling the Two Essentiality Tests in Free World

    Allergan Inc v Sandoz Canada Inc 2020 FC 1189 Crampton CJ2,507,002 / silodosin / RAPAFLO / NOCIn this NOC decision Crampton CJ held that Allergan’s 002 patent was not invalid for obviousness, but it was not infringed by Sandoz’s silodosin formulation. These holdings turned largely on the facts, thou … Read more »

  • Does the Discoverability Rule Apply to the Patent Act Limitations Provision?

    Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC v Google Canada Corp 2020 FC 992 McVeigh J            2,415,167In this motion McVeigh J declined to direct the proposed determination of a question of law relating to the limitations period in s 55.01 the Patent Act pursuant to Rule 220(1)(a), but in so doing she decide … Read more »