<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Global IP Watch - Intellectual Property for International Professionals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.globalipwatch.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com</link>
	<description>Intellectual Property for International Professionals</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:06:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>FCA: TM Infringement Causing Owner&#8217;s Loss Of Control Sufficient To Establish Damages For Passing Off</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2011/02/06/fca-tm-infringement-causing-owners-loss-of-control-sufficient-to-establish-damages-for-passing-off/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2011/02/06/fca-tm-infringement-causing-owners-loss-of-control-sufficient-to-establish-damages-for-passing-off/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 05:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andria Cramer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Passing off]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Paul Cheung et al. v. Target Event Production Ltd. (2010 FCA 255), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) allowed in part an appeal made by Paul Cheung and Lions Communications Inc. (collectively “Lions”) and dismissed a cross-appeal made by Target from a decision rendered of the Federal Court (“FC”) (2010 FC 27). The FCA [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2011/02/06/fca-tm-infringement-causing-owners-loss-of-control-sufficient-to-establish-damages-for-passing-off/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCA: Preferred means of calculating an accounting of profits, differential profit approach, not limited to innocent infringer</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2011/02/05/fca-preferred-means-of-calculating-an-accounting-of-profits-differential-profit-approach-not-limited-to-innocent-infringer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2011/02/05/fca-preferred-means-of-calculating-an-accounting-of-profits-differential-profit-approach-not-limited-to-innocent-infringer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2011 20:23:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Will Boyer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accounting of profits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[differential profit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remedies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1600</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Rivett v. Monsanto Canada Inc. (2010 FCA 207), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) unanimously allowed Rivett’s and Janssens’ (Appellants) appeals, in part, from their Federal Court (“FC”) decisions, 2009 FC 317 and 2009 FC 318 respectively. The FCA held the FC had erred in calculating Monsanto Canada Inc.’s (Monsanto) award of profits when [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2011/02/05/fca-preferred-means-of-calculating-an-accounting-of-profits-differential-profit-approach-not-limited-to-innocent-infringer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The ’851 Patent for Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Failed the “Obviousness” Test</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/26/the-%e2%80%99851-patent-for-type-2-diabetes-treatment-failed-the-%e2%80%9cobviousness%e2%80%9d-test/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/26/the-%e2%80%99851-patent-for-type-2-diabetes-treatment-failed-the-%e2%80%9cobviousness%e2%80%9d-test/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Dec 2010 20:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nicole Xiao</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anticipation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repaglinide]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1595</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Novo Nordisk Canada Inc. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Court (&#8220;FC&#8221;) dismissed Novo Nordisk Canada Inc.’s (&#8220;Novo&#8221;) application for an order to prohibit the Minister of Health (&#8220;Minister&#8221;) from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. (&#8220;Cobalt&#8221;) until the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,111,851 (&#8220;the ’851 patent”) for a compound [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/26/the-%e2%80%99851-patent-for-type-2-diabetes-treatment-failed-the-%e2%80%9cobviousness%e2%80%9d-test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FC upholds dismissal of clearly descriptive TM applications: does not matter whether proposed TM contains previously registered words</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/25/fc-upholds-dismissal-of-clearly-descriptive-tm-applications-does-not-matter-whether-proposed-tm-contains-previously-registered-words/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/25/fc-upholds-dismissal-of-clearly-descriptive-tm-applications-does-not-matter-whether-proposed-tm-contains-previously-registered-words/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:43:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>esquired</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquired distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clearly descriptive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Flag design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1591</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Limited v. Canadian Jewellers Association (2010 FC 309), the Federal Court of Canada (“FC”) dismissed an appeal under s. 56 of the Trade-marks Act (“the Act”) by Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Ltd. (“Applicant”) from a decision of the Registrar of Trade-marks (sitting as the Trade-marks Opposition Board) dismissing the Applicant’s three applications [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/25/fc-upholds-dismissal-of-clearly-descriptive-tm-applications-does-not-matter-whether-proposed-tm-contains-previously-registered-words/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FC: Small 7-week study did not demonstrate utility for ADHD treatment atomoxetine; lack of reference to study precluded a finding of sound prediction</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/25/fc-small-7-week-study-did-not-demonstrate-utility-for-adhd-treatment-atomoxetine-lack-of-reference-to-study-precluded-a-finding-of-sound-prediction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/25/fc-small-7-week-study-did-not-demonstrate-utility-for-adhd-treatment-atomoxetine-lack-of-reference-to-study-precluded-a-finding-of-sound-prediction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 05:38:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ken Ma</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sound prediction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[utility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1585</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Novopharm Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Company (2010 FC 915), the Federal Court of Canada (“Federal Court”) considered allegations raised by Novopharm Ltd. (“Novopharm”) that Eli Lilly and Company’s (“Eli Lilly”) Canadian Patent No. 2,209,735 (“’735 patent”) was invalid and void under S. 60(1) of the Patent Act for being obvious, anticipated, an improper [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/25/fc-small-7-week-study-did-not-demonstrate-utility-for-adhd-treatment-atomoxetine-lack-of-reference-to-study-precluded-a-finding-of-sound-prediction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCA upholds Registrar&#8217;s CASTILLO mark expungement, rejecting argument waiting for resolution of litigation over associated mark justified non-use</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/04/fca-upholds-registrars-castillo-mark-expungement-rejecting-argument-waiting-for-resolution-of-litigation-over-associated-mark-justified-non-use/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/04/fca-upholds-registrars-castillo-mark-expungement-rejecting-argument-waiting-for-resolution-of-litigation-over-associated-mark-justified-non-use/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 03:38:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tiffany Hu</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expungement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[special circumstances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standard of review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1577</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Jose Cuervo S.A. de C.V. v. Bacardi and Company Limited (2010 FCA 248), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) upheld a decision (2009 FC 1166) of the Federal Court of Canada (“Federal Court”) without providing additional reasons, dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade-Marks (“Registrar”) to expunge Jose Cuervo S.A. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/12/04/fca-upholds-registrars-castillo-mark-expungement-rejecting-argument-waiting-for-resolution-of-litigation-over-associated-mark-justified-non-use/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCA: result of salt screening identifying new drug properties were &#8216;obviousness to try&#8217; based on known advantages of candidate compounds</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/10/15/fca-result-of-salt-screening-identifying-new-drug-properties-were-obviousness-to-try-based-on-known-advantages-of-candidate-compounds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/10/15/fca-result-of-salt-screening-identifying-new-drug-properties-were-obviousness-to-try-based-on-known-advantages-of-candidate-compounds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:09:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elvina Chow</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obvious to try]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Pfizer Ltd. v. Ratiopharm Inc. (2010 FCA 204), the Federal Court of Appeal (&#8220;FCA&#8221;) upheld a Federal Court decision (2009 FC 711) holding Pfizer&#8217;s Canadian Patent No. 1,321,393 (&#8220;&#8217;393 patent&#8221;) invalid for obviousness. Amlodipine is a calcium channel blocker, its pharmaceutically acceptable besylate salt is marketed under the tradename NORVASC and used to treat [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/10/15/fca-result-of-salt-screening-identifying-new-drug-properties-were-obviousness-to-try-based-on-known-advantages-of-candidate-compounds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FC: Bare allegation of therapeutic benefit of pure enantiomers insufficient to demonstrate utility, sound prediction</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/10/06/fc-bare-allegation-of-therapeutic-benefit-of-pure-enantiomers-insufficient-to-demonstrate-utility-sound-prediction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/10/06/fc-bare-allegation-of-therapeutic-benefit-of-pure-enantiomers-insufficient-to-demonstrate-utility-sound-prediction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 03:04:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Simon Picard</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anticipation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sound prediction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (2010 FC 714), the Federal Court (&#8220;FC&#8221;) denied AstraZeneca Canada&#8217;s (&#8220;AstraZeneca&#8221;) application under s. 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (&#8220;PMNOC Regulations&#8220;) prohibiting ththe issuance of a Notice of Compliance (&#8220;NOC&#8221;) to Apotex Inc. until the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,139,653 (&#8221; &#8217;653 patent&#8221;). [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/10/06/fc-bare-allegation-of-therapeutic-benefit-of-pure-enantiomers-insufficient-to-demonstrate-utility-sound-prediction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FC: &#8220;ascending dose&#8221; claim language describes drug release behaviour, not patient blood concentration</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/09/26/fc-construes-ascending-dose-claim-language-as-describing-only-drug-release-behaviour-not-increase-in-patients-blood-concentration/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/09/26/fc-construes-ascending-dose-claim-language-as-describing-only-drug-release-behaviour-not-increase-in-patients-blood-concentration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elvina Chow</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NOC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) (2010 FC 42), the Federal Court of Canada (&#8220;Federal Court&#8221;) denied Alza Corporation and Janssen-Ortho&#8217;s (&#8220;the Applicants&#8221;) application for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Novopharm Ltd. for its generic methylphenidate drug until the expiration of Canadian Patent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/09/26/fc-construes-ascending-dose-claim-language-as-describing-only-drug-release-behaviour-not-increase-in-patients-blood-concentration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FC Finds Anticipated Formulation Patent Non-Obvious Since Same Prior Art Would Teach Away From Invention</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/07/01/fc-finds-anticipated-formulation-patent-non-obvious-since-same-prior-art-would-teach-away-from-invention/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/07/01/fc-finds-anticipated-formulation-patent-non-obvious-since-same-prior-art-would-teach-away-from-invention/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:21:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Inder Gida</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anticipation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double patenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Swiss claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[teaching away]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1437</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Merck &#38; Co. Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc. (2010 FC 510), the Federal Court (FC) dismissed Merck &#38; Co. Inc.&#8217;s (Merck) application to prohibit the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Pharmascience Inc. The FC found Canadian Patent No. 2,173,457 (the &#8217;457 patent) invalid on the basis of double patenting [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/07/01/fc-finds-anticipated-formulation-patent-non-obvious-since-same-prior-art-would-teach-away-from-invention/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
