Chambers Global, in a second independent review from clients, had this to say about Brian: “Brian ‘can perform miracles’ according to his clients. As well as being ‘a pleasure to work with,’ he can deal with situations where ‘there are no real precedents’. As one client remarked, ‘ we cannot afford to take risks- we need a lawyer who can provide an analysis of which way the law is going and who can foresee how the courts might respond-and that’s precisely what Gray does.”

In an independent review from clients, Chambers Global had this to say about Brian: “Brian Gray is considered the best …for pure IP work, whether contentious or non-contentious. Clients say he is ‘diligent, knowledgeable, responsible and reasonable in terms of what needs to be done and portioning out the work so the rates remain viable.”

News

Copyright in Works Created by Artificial Intelligence

Sunday, September 15, 2019

As Chairman of the AIPPI Canadian Group Copyright Committee I led our group's report on copyright in works created by artifical intelligence. This report was considered with the other national reports at the conference in London UK in September 2019 where I participated in the formulation of the final resolution. The Canadian group's report and the final resolution is available on request.

I also participated in the patent committee and the debates on that topic concerning utility and plausibility.

Related Articles

Post sale rights post Lexmark. Implications for U.S. and foreign patent owners and licensees

  • Posted on: 14 February 2018
  • By: BWG

Post sale rights post Lexmark. Implications for U.S. and foreign patent owners and licensees.

The Supreme Court disallows post sale restrictions

The Supreme Court of the United States in Lexmark v. Impression Products 581 U.S. 1523 (2017) May 30, 2017 has disallowed any patent post sale restrictions following the sale of a patented article from the patent owner or any licensee from the patent owner.

Tags: 

patent construction and infringement lecture

  • Posted on: 13 February 2018
  • By: BWG

Claim Interpretation and Patent Infringement

 

What’s the big deal?

It’s only words, and as lawyers we are used to reading words.

Words inherently imprecise.

If it’s a contract we try to look at surrounding circumstances to see what the parties intended?

Can we do that in a patent specification?

 

Does it matter what the inventor intended? If not way not?

A patent claim has a public function. It is not a matter of interpreting the party’s intention.

Tags: