In 2020, the Federal Court of Canada decided an important case on subject matter eligibility of computer implemented inventions: Choueifaty v. Attorney General of Canada 2020FC 837. Briefly I explain why the decision in Choueifaty is at least analytically wrong, although I take no position, at this time, as to whether the case was correctly decided as to subject matter eligibility, only that it was decided for the wrong reasons.
On October 2, 2020, I moderated a panel at the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC) on Patenting Computer Related Inventions. This panel discusssed developments in Canada and the U.S. including the new Choueifaty decision in Canada. Panelists were Hugh Mansfield at Lavery and Jerry Selinger at Patterson Sheridan.
On April 24, 2019 I spoke at Fordham Law School's Hansen Intellectual Property Institute on the topic of Canada's New Patent Term Extension Regime. A copy of this presentation is available on request.
In May 2017 I reported on the trial decision of Mr. Justice Russell, in The Governors of the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services v.
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.
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.