Bonne explication de la protection par brevets à Hong-Kong

Voir le texte produit par l’OEB

Avis de pratique de l’OPIC sur le critère d’évidence en brevets au Canada

Voir l’avis de pratique publié par le Bureau des brevets du Canada

World Intellectual Property Indicators

Voir le rapport de l’OMPI pour 2009

Kit de formation en brevets pour les universités

L’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

Voir sur le nouveau site Found Persuasive qui contient également des gabarits de réponses à des rapports d’examen du USPTO

http://www.foundpersuasive.com/the_examination_process.aspx

Jurisprudence récente brevets: on ne peut pas utiliser l’art. 8 pour corriger des dessins de brevets

Scannex 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

Voir la décision Sky Technologies, LLC. v. Sap AG

Article sur la prochaine date limite pour déposer des demandes divisionnaires en Europe

Voir l’article de IP Frontline

Article récente sur les licences de PI dans les situations de faillite

Voir 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

Voir un des brevets de William Boyle pour le CCD

Articles de PI intéressants dans le plus récent FPTT newsletter

Voir 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

Voir 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

Voir l’avis du USPTO.

Voir le commentaire de Patently-o avec les détails.

Statistiques intéressantes sur les agents de brevets en Europe

Voir 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

Voir 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

Une 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)

Commentaire de IPFrontline

Commentaire de Patent Docs

Matériel didactique intéressant du cours sur les brevets canadiens de l’université Victoria

Voir 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

Article sur les stratégies de négociation de licences en PI

Voir l’article de IP Frontline

Article sur les dessins communautaires européens non-enregistrés qui offrent quand-même une protection temporaire de 3 ans

Voir l’article de IP frontline (une protection utile pour les gens qui oeuvrent dans le domaine de la mode)

Jurisprudence récente: critères pour une ordonnance Norwich

York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises, 2009 CanLII 46447 (ON S.C.) — 2009-09-09

Un cas de diffamation par internet où le demandeur cherche à obtenir de Bell Canada l’identité de l’auteur, vu que Bell Canada était le fournisseur de services internet pour celui-ci.

Une ordonnance de type Norwich est recherchée, ordonnance qui a ses origines par rapport à un dossier brevets tel qu’expliqué dans la décision:

[12]      A plaintiff or potential plaintiff may seek pre-action discovery in order to identify a defendant by way of an equitable bill of discovery known as a “Norwich order”. In Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise, above, the case that gave its name to the order, Norwich Pharmacal was the owner of a patent that it claimed was being infringed by the illicit import of a product manufactured abroad. It brought an action against the Customs and Excise Commissioners seeking disclosure of the names and addresses of the importers. The House of Lords held that where a person becomes involved in the tortious acts of others, even innocently, that person has a duty to give full information to the injured party, by way of discovery, to disclose the identity of the wrongdoer.

[13]      On August 21, 2009, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in GEA Group AG v. Ventra Group Co. 2009 ONCA 619 (CanLII), 2009 ONCA 619 (GEA Group), which conducted an extensive review of the Canadian cases in which Norwich orders have been granted and discussed “the circumstances in which this extraordinary discretionary relief may be obtained in Ontario” (at para 1).

Et la conclusion dans ce cas-ci:

[39]      In summary, in this case, I was satisfied that:

(a)               the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of defamation and the claim appeared to be reasonable and made in good faith;

(b)               the defendants Bell and Rogers, although innocent of any wrongdoing, were implicated in the alleged defamation because their services were used for publication;

(c)               reasonable efforts had been made, with no success, to obtain the information from the only known potential source;

(d)               the costs of compliance were nominal and had been met;

(e)               without the information sought, the plaintiff would be without a remedy;

(f)                 the internet service customer(s) who published the communications could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the use of the internet for the purpose of publishing defamatory statements; and

(g)               the disclosure of the information was for the limited purpose of enabling the plaintiff to commence litigation, if so advised.

[40]      For these reasons, I granted the Norwich order.