Depuis le 17 novembre, Google Scholar met des décisions des tribunaux américains en ligne.
Le site justia.com permet également de faire des recherches de jurisprudence ou d’état de dossier
Autres sources pour obtenir de la jurisprudence américaine en brevets
November 30, 2009 by Adam MizeraPourquoi obtenir un document de cession lors du dépôt de la demande provisoire
November 23, 2009 by Adam MizeraUn cas au UK qui illustre comment on peut perdre un droit de priorité si on n’obtient pas un document de cession entre le moment du dépôt de la demande prioritaire et le dépôt d’une demande formelle (PCT ou autre)
Bonne explication de la protection par brevets à Hong-Kong
November 4, 2009 by Adam MizeraAvis de pratique de l’OPIC sur le critère d’évidence en brevets au Canada
November 2, 2009 by Adam MizeraWorld Intellectual Property Indicators
November 2, 2009 by Adam MizeraVoir le rapport de l’OMPI pour 2009
Kit de formation en brevets pour les universités
November 2, 2009 by Adam MizeraL’OEB a développé un kit de formation de base en brevets destiné aux étudiants universitaires. Le kit contient du matériel de formation qui peut être utilisé par les professeurs afin d’enseigner les notions de base en brevets à leurs étudiants. Voir le kit.
Présentation de base sur la procédure d’obtention de brevets au USPTO
October 30, 2009 by Adam MizeraVoir sur le nouveau site Found Persuasive qui contient également des gabarits de réponses à des rapports d’examen du USPTO
Jurisprudence récente brevets: on ne peut pas utiliser l’art. 8 pour corriger des dessins de brevets
October 29, 2009 by Adam MizeraScannex Technologies, LLC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FC 1068, (October 21, 2009)
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc1068/2009fc1068.html
Voici les extraits importants:
[1] This is an application pursuant Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act and Rule 300(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, for judicial review of a decision dated January 5, by the Commissioner of Patents refusing to substitute incorrect figures submitted by Scannex Technologies LLC (the “Applicant”) in support of its Canadian Patent application Serial No. 2,373,253 (the “Patent Application”) pursuant to s.8 of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4.
[4] The Applicant filed a U.S. patent application, serial number 09/311,442, entitled “Non-Destructive Testing of Hidden Flaws” (the “US Application”) on May 14, 1999. The Applicant filed a set of figures with the US Application. The US Application was successful and a patent was issued.
[5] The Applicant filed a corresponding international patent application (“PCT Application”), PCT/US00/12780 on May 10, 2000. A set of figures was also filed with this application, but the figures were not the same as those filed with the US Application and were thus incorrect.
[6] That PCT Application then entered national phase in Canada, becoming the Patent Application. The figures filed with the Patent Application were thus also incorrect.
[7] On November 28, 2006, a Canadian Examiner’s Report advised the Applicant that figures filed with the Patent Application were incorrect.
[8] In response, the Applicant requested the Commissioner to replace the incorrect figures filed with the Patent Application with correct figures, pursuant to s. 8 of the Patent Act, which provides that:
| 8. Clerical errors in any instrument of record in the Patent Office do not invalidate the instrument, but they may be corrected under the authority of the Commissioner. | 8. Un document en dépôt au Bureau des brevets n’est pas invalide en raison d’erreurs d’écriture; elles peuvent être corrigées sous l’autorité du commissaire. |
[9] The Applicant submitted an affidavit stating that incorrect figures were filed with the PCT Application and thus the Patent Application due to an unintentional error of a clerk of the Applicant’s agent in the United States. The Applicant also filed a certified copy of the US Application, which contained the correct figures.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[10] In a letter dated January 5, 2009, the Commissioner refused to make the substitution requested by the Applicant. The Commissioner took the position that “the type of error envisaged by section 8 [of the Patent Act] clearly imparts a mistake by a clerk or subordinate in the mechanical process of typewriting or transcribing a document but does not extend to the inherent duties and responsibilities of an agent involved in the prosecution of patent applications.”
[11] According to the Commissioner, the submission of correct figures is one of the “inherent duties and responsibilities” of an applicant, and the Commissioner has no power to rectify a submission of incorrect figures.
ISSUES
[12] This application raises the following issues:1) What is or are the appropriate standard(s) of review?
2) Does the Commissioners’ decision contain a reviewable error?
30] Thus, it is clear that the error that led to the filing of incorrect figures with the Applicant’s Patent Application was not a “clerical error” within the admittedly narrow meaning of the Patent Act. The Commissioner’s determination was not unreasonable.
[31] For these reasons, the application for judicial review of the decision is dismissed. Considering the time and effort put by the Respondent on this judicial review and the fact that the Applicant chose at the last minute not to appear at the oral hearing, the Court exercising its discretion, grants costs to the Respondent payable forthwith, in the amount of $2,159.01, as set out in the Bill of Costs filed by the Respondent.
Droits d’un brevet US transférés sans une cession écrite – mais dans le contexte d’une faillite
October 28, 2009 by Adam MizeraVoir la décision Sky Technologies, LLC. v. Sap AG
Article sur la prochaine date limite pour déposer des demandes divisionnaires en Europe
October 14, 2009 by Adam MizeraVoir l’article de IP Frontline
Article récente sur les licences de PI dans les situations de faillite
October 8, 2009 by Adam MizeraVoir l’article de IPFrontline qui examine les effets de récents amendements de la Loi sur la faillite au Canada
Voir également http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c12&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=2#intellectual
Un des brevets relié au prix Nobel de la physique de 2009
October 7, 2009 by Adam MizeraArticles de PI intéressants dans le plus récent FPTT newsletter
October 7, 2009 by Adam MizeraVoir le FPTT Newsletter au complet
Articles plus intéressants:
-
Grossman, M. “How to guard your trade secretes (and why you must)”, CIO IT Drilldown, January 2009.Read article.
-
Hall, B. The Use and Value of IP Rights, prepared for the UK IP Ministerial Forum on the Economic Value of Intellectual Property, June 2009. Read paper.
-
Hanel, P. Protection of Intellectual Property by Manufacturing Firms in Canada, 32 pages.. Read paper.
-
How Licensing Intellectual Property Can Help Your Business, UK Intellectual Property Office, July 2008, 24 pages. Read book.
-
Lahser, A. “3 Factors Any Business Plan Should Consider Before Filing A Patent Application”, Law Office of Andrew P. Lahser, December 2008.. Read article.
Livre gratuit: Canadian Intellectual Property Law for Dummies
October 7, 2009 by Adam MizeraVoir le lien suivant pour en obtenir une copie: Canadian Intellectual Property Law for Dummies
Changements dans les quotas/système de points des examinateurs au USPTO
October 1, 2009 by Adam MizeraStatistiques intéressantes sur les agents de brevets en Europe
September 30, 2009 by Adam MizeraVoir l’article de IAM Magazine pour plus de détails/discussion:
European patent attorneys by country (selected)
Germany – 3,157
United Kingdom – 1,799
France – 822
The Netherlands – 397
Poland – 371
Italy – 356
Sweden – 289
Denmark – 171
Spain 156
Belgium – 154
Finland – 151
Jurisprudence récente en licensing de brevets
September 30, 2009 by Adam MizeraVoir le résumé extrait de la décision:
E.B.F. Manufacturing Ltd. v. White; 2009 NSSC 280; Nova Scotia Supreme Court; September 21, 2009;
Subject: Contracts, repudiation, fundamental breach; Patents, damages, loss of contribution
Summary: The parties went through a trial in 2003, in which the issues were repudiation by E.B.F. of an exclusive licence agreement under which White granted an extensive licence to manufacture and sell electrified fencing invented and patented by White. The court found there had been no repudiation. Just the same, White went into competition. In this trial, E.B.F. claimed damages for breach of the exclusive licence agreement by White. White counterclaimed for a declaration that the agreement was terminated for repudiation or fundamental breach.
Issues: (1) Whether repudiation or fundamental breach had been established?
(2) If not, damages had to be assessed for White’s competition.
Result: Further breaches since 2003 were insufficient to found repudiation or fundamental breach, and, in any case, White did not accept the repudiation or elect to treat the exclusive licence agreement as terminated. Damages were assessed on the basis that E.B.F. lost a sale for each of White’s sales, and damages were assessed on the value each sale would have contributed to below the line expenses and profits, that is, E.B.F.’s actual gross profit per sale.
Jurisprudence récente US-méthode de traitement/diagnostique brevetable suite à Bilski
September 30, 2009 by Adam MizeraUne jurisprudence récente US réanalyse le test de l’affaire Bilski dans le contexte des méthodes de traitement médical avec diagnostique. La Cour d’appel du Circuit fédéral américain a en effet déterminé qu’une telle méthode de traitement médical avec diagnostique était brevetable.
Voir le texte de la décision. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Matériel didactique intéressant du cours sur les brevets canadiens de l’université Victoria
September 21, 2009 by Adam MizeraVoir sur le site-web de la faculté de UVIC – le site a des “checklists” intéressants pour les questions de contrefaçon (utile pour les examens de contrefaçon) et de licences de brevets entre autres
