<?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>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:20:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<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.'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 '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>
		<item>
		<title>FC interprets desired result claim language as unfulfilled promise in invalidating formulation patent for overbreadth and lack of utility</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/07/01/fc-interprets-desired-result-claim-language-as-unfulfilled-promise-in-invalidating-formulation-patent-for-overbreadth-and-lack-of-utility/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/07/01/fc-interprets-desired-result-claim-language-as-unfulfilled-promise-in-invalidating-formulation-patent-for-overbreadth-and-lack-of-utility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:02:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Simon Picard</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[functional limitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overbreadth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[utility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Ratiopharm Inc. (2010 FC 230), the Federal Court ("FC") denied Sanofi-Aventis Canada's (Sanofi) application to prohibit the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance ("NOC") to Ratiopharm Inc. pursuant to section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations ("PMNOC Regulations"). The FC held Sanofi's Canadian Patent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/07/01/fc-interprets-desired-result-claim-language-as-unfulfilled-promise-in-invalidating-formulation-patent-for-overbreadth-and-lack-of-utility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NOC Prohibition Application for which appeals had not been exhausted was &#8220;pending&#8221;, allowed new regulations to attach stricter liability to Application&#8217;s eventual dismissal</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/noc-prohibition-application-for-which-appeals-had-not-been-exhausted-was-pending-allowed-new-regulations-to-attach-stricter-liability-to-applications-eventual-dismissal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/noc-prohibition-application-for-which-appeals-had-not-been-exhausted-was-pending-allowed-new-regulations-to-attach-stricter-liability-to-applications-eventual-dismissal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 02:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nicole Xiao</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1417</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Apotex Inc. v. Merck &#38; Co., Inc (2010 FC 287), the Federal Court of Canada (FC) held that Apotex is entitled to obtain compensation from Merck for having been kept out of the norfloxacin market for several years while the parties litigated Apotex's Notice of Compliance (NOC) application. Apotex tried to market a generic [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/noc-prohibition-application-for-which-appeals-had-not-been-exhausted-was-pending-allowed-new-regulations-to-attach-stricter-liability-to-applications-eventual-dismissal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FC Holds Ice Skate Designer Infringed by inducement and procurement through Manufacturering partner unaware of patent</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/fc-holds-ice-skate-designer-infringed-by-inducement-and-procurement-through-manufacturering-partner-unaware-of-the-patent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/fc-holds-ice-skate-designer-infringed-by-inducement-and-procurement-through-manufacturering-partner-unaware-of-the-patent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:04:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fereshteh Ghadyani</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anticipation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement by inducement and procurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[utility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1407</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Bauer Hockey Corp. v. Easton Sports Canada Inc. (2010 FC 361), the Federal Court ("FC") held Easton Sports Canada Inc. (Easton) infringed, and induced others to infringe, plaintiff Bauer's Canadian Patent No. 2302953 ("the '953 patent") claiming an improved skate having a one-piece quarter section. The FC found all skates manufactured by Easton using [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/fc-holds-ice-skate-designer-infringed-by-inducement-and-procurement-through-manufacturering-partner-unaware-of-the-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FC Finds ornamental mark embossed on bathroom tissue hidden by packaging not S.4 &#8220;use&#8221;, unlikely to be recognized as indication of source by consumer</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/fc-finds-ornamental-mark-embossed-on-bathroom-tissue-hidden-by-packaging-not-s-4-use-unlikely-to-be-recognized-as-indication-of-source-by-consumer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/fc-finds-ornamental-mark-embossed-on-bathroom-tissue-hidden-by-packaging-not-s-4-use-unlikely-to-be-recognized-as-indication-of-source-by-consumer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 04:48:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt Jerome</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ornamental mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standard of review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1402</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Scott Paper v. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (2010 FC 478), the Federal Court of Canada (FC) set aside a decision from the Trade-Marks Opposition Board (TMOB) and reinstated applicant Scott Paper's trade-mark application covering a daisy flower square pattern design for use with bathroom tissue. Scott Paper had appealed under section 56 of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/fc-finds-ornamental-mark-embossed-on-bathroom-tissue-hidden-by-packaging-not-s-4-use-unlikely-to-be-recognized-as-indication-of-source-by-consumer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian FCA Holds Patent Litigation Outcome Not Retroactive Basis for S8 PMNOCR Damages Action</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/16/canadian-fca-holds-patent-litigation-outcome-not-retroactive-basis-for-s8-pmnocr-damages-action/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/16/canadian-fca-holds-patent-litigation-outcome-not-retroactive-basis-for-s8-pmnocr-damages-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kiernan A. Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NOC; s8 damages; retroactivity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Apotex Inc. v. Syntex Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (2010 FCA 155), the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA") affirmed the Federal Court's (FC) decision (2009 FC 494) dismissing Apotex's claim for damages under s.8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations ("PMNOCR"). The FCA held that s.8 of the PMNOCR does not apply where an [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/16/canadian-fca-holds-patent-litigation-outcome-not-retroactive-basis-for-s8-pmnocr-damages-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FC Upholds Striped Toothpaste Design Mark, Rejecting Non-Distinctiveness and Functional Arguments</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/02/fc-upholds-striped-toothpaste-design-mark-rejecting-non-distinctiveness-and-functional-arguments/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/02/fc-upholds-striped-toothpaste-design-mark-rejecting-non-distinctiveness-and-functional-arguments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 22:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Heather Michel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[functional mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ornamental mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standard of review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1394</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Procter &#38; Gamble Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolve Canada Inc. (2010 FC 231), the Federal Court of Canada (FC) upheld a decision of the Trade-marks Opposition Board ("the Board") rejecting the Applicant Procter &#38; Gamble's appeal under section 56 of the Trade-marks Act (the Act) opposing the registration of the Respondent Colgate-Palmolive's trade-mark Application for a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/02/fc-upholds-striped-toothpaste-design-mark-rejecting-non-distinctiveness-and-functional-arguments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC Remands Inconsistent Jury Verdict Which Found Dependent Claims Obvious, But Not Antecedent Independent Claims</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/22/cafc-remands-inconsistent-jury-verdict-which-found-dependent-claims-obvious-but-not-antecedent-independent-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/22/cafc-remands-inconsistent-jury-verdict-which-found-dependent-claims-obvious-but-not-antecedent-independent-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 04:34:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Bickley</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[United States: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Analogous Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inconsistent Jury Verdicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Comparer Corp. v. Antec, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") upheld the District Court's claim construction but vacated the jury's verdicts on obviousness as irreconcilably inconsistent, remanding the case for a new trial on invalidity. Comaper had brought suit against Antec alleging willful infringement of multiple claims of U.S. Patent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/22/cafc-remands-inconsistent-jury-verdict-which-found-dependent-claims-obvious-but-not-antecedent-independent-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC holds forwarding GPS signals satisfies transmission/communication elements of processing method patent; GPS receiver satisfies machine component of Bilski method test</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/13/cafc-holds-forwarding-gps-signals-satisfies-transmissioncommunication-elements-of-processing-method-patent-gps-receiver-satisfies-machine-component-of-bilski-method-test/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/13/cafc-holds-forwarding-gps-signals-satisfies-transmissioncommunication-elements-of-processing-method-patent-gps-receiver-satisfies-machine-component-of-bilski-method-test/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 21:36:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xavier P. Diokno</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[United States: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Assignment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In SiRF Technology, Inc v. International Trade Commission and Broadcom, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") affirmed the United States International Trade Commission's ("Commission") ruling that (1) Broadcom Corporation and Global Locate, Inc. (collectively, "Global Locate") had standing to sue SiRF Technology, Inc., E-TEN Information Systems Co., Ltd., Pharos Science &#38; Applications, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/13/cafc-holds-forwarding-gps-signals-satisfies-transmissioncommunication-elements-of-processing-method-patent-gps-receiver-satisfies-machine-component-of-bilski-method-test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC Holds Multi-Input Video Game Controller Unsupported by Single Input Specification of Parent Application, Invalidating Priority</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/05/cafc-holds-multi-input-video-game-controller-unsupported-by-single-input-specification-of-parent-application-invalidating-priority/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/05/cafc-holds-multi-input-video-game-controller-unsupported-by-single-input-specification-of-parent-application-invalidating-priority/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 19:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt Peters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[United States: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[continuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing date]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[written description]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") reversed a jury verdict from a District Court that found Microsoft had infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,906,700 ("the '700 patent"), owned by Anascape. The patent for a hand-operated controller used for video games was a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/05/cafc-holds-multi-input-video-game-controller-unsupported-by-single-input-specification-of-parent-application-invalidating-priority/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
