Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Canadian Patent Law > Canadian Case Law > Flashcards

Canadian Case Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Name the leading Canadian Supreme Court case pertaining to novelty and obviousness.

A

Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc., 2008 SCC 61, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 265

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the case Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc., 2008 SCC 61 know for?

A

It’s the leading court case pertaining to novelty and obviousness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Name a Canadian court case pertaining to the statement:
Not an infringement if activities occur fully outside of Canada.

A

Domco Industries Ltd v. Mannington Mills inc. (1988), 29 C.P.R.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the court case Domco Industries Ltd v. Mannington Mills inc. (1988), 29 C.P.R. known for?

A

Not infringement if activities occur fully outside of Canada.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Name a Canadian court case pertaining to the statement:
Importation deprives patentee of full enjoyment of its monopoly.

A

Monsanto v. Scheider, 2004, SCC 34

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does the case Monsanto v. Schmeiser 2004, SCC 34 say about importation?

A

Importation deprives patentee of full enjoyment of its monopoly.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does the case Domco Industries Ltd v. Armstrong Cork Canada Ltd, 1982 known for?

A

Non-exclusive licensee can bring infringement action.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What court case pertained to non-exclusive licensees being able to bring infringement action?

A

Domco Industries Ltd v. Armstrong Cork Canada Ltd, 1982

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What does the case Comstock Canada v. Elected Ltd. (1991), 38 C.P.R. (3d) 29 (F.C.T.D) known for?

A

Employees own invention unless employed for purpose of inventing.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What court case pertains to the statement:
Employees own invention unless employed for purpose of inventing.

A

Comstock Canada v. Elected Ltd. (1991), 38 C.P.R. (3d) 29 (F.C.T.D)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What does the court case Canmar Foods Ltd v TA Foods Ltd, 2019 FC 1233 known for?

A

The use of foreign prosecution history estoppel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the case Rucker Co v Gavel’s Vulcanizing Ltd (1985), 7 CPR (3d) 294. best known for?

A

Recycling can be interpreted as remanufacture and thus infringement.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the case Rucker Co v Gavel’s Vulcanizing Ltd (1986) 7 C.P.R. (3d), 6 C.I.P.R. 137 (F.C.T.D.) best known for?

A

Repair to patented article is not infringement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Cite the case law supporting the following statement:
Repair to a patented article is not infringement.

A

Rucker Co v Gavel’s Vulcanizing Ltd (1986) 7 C.P.R. (3d), 6 C.I.P.R. 137 (F.C.T.D.)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Cite the leading court case regarding springboard profits (requiring an infringer to account for profits it made even after the patent’s expiry).

A

Dow Chemicals vs. Nova chemicals 2017 FC 350

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

For what type of damages is the court case Dow Chemicals vs. Nova chemicals 2017 FC 350 known for?

A

Springboard profits (requiring an infringer to account for profits it made even after the patent’s expiry)

17
Q

Name the things the court case Windsurfing International Inc. v. Trilantic Corp. (1985), 8 C.P.R. (3d) is known for.

A

Infringement if selling kit that can only be assembled into a patented article.
- Without assembly there can be no purpose in a purchaser buying the unassembled parts.

18
Q

What is court case most pertaining to induced infringement?

A

MacLennan et al. v. Produits Gilbert Inc., 2008 FCA 35

19
Q

What is the court case most cited regarding the principle of claim differentiation?

“Expressed broadly, the principle of claim differentiation is that a limitation of one claim cannot be read into another.”

A

Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc., 2004 FC 88

20
Q

What is the court case Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc., 2004 FC 88 best known for?

A

Describes the principle of claim differentiation.

“Expressed broadly, the principle of claim differentiation is that a limitation of one claim cannot be read into another.”

21
Q

What court case pertains to the following statement:
Infringement occurs only when the accused product takes all the essential elements of the claims.

A

Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc., 2000, SCC 66

22
Q

What court cases pertains to the following statement:

A non-infringing alternative needs too be economically viable.

A

Apotex v. Lilly 2018 FC 217 or

Apotex v. Merk 2015 FCA 171

23
Q

What is the court case MacLennan et al. v. Produits Gilbert Inc., 2008 FCA 35 best known for?

A

Test for induced infringement.
The three factor test was paraphrased by the Court as:

  1. there must be an act of infringement by the direct infringer;
  2. this act must be influenced by the seller to the point where, without this influence, infringement by the buyer would not otherwise take place;
  3. the influence must be knowingly exercised by the seller, i.e., the seller knows that this influence will result in the completion of the act of infringement.
24
Q

What is the court case most cited regarding the test for induced infringement?

  1. there must be an act of infringement by the direct infringer;
  2. this act must be influenced by the seller to the point where, without this influence, infringement by the buyer would not otherwise take place;
  3. the influence must be knowingly exercised by the seller, i.e., the seller knows that this influence will result in the completion of the act of infringement.
A

MacLennan et al. v. Produits Gilbert Inc., 2008 FCA 35

25
Q

What court case is most known for:

Sale of non-infringing parts for use in an infringing machine does not, in itself, amount to infringement.

A

Beloit Canada Ltd. V. Valmet Oy (1995), 61 C.P.R. (3d)

26
Q

What is the court case Beloit Canada Ltd. V. Valmet Oy (1995), 61 C.P.R. (3d) known for?

A

Sale of non-infringing parts for use in an infringing machine does not, in itself, amount to infringement

27
Q

What is the court case relevant to a party not being guilty of direct infringement if not performing the “actions covered by the claim”?

A

Apotex Inc. v. Astrazeneca Canada Inc., 2017, FCA 9
or
Weatherford Canada Inc. v. Corlac Inc., 2011

Canadian Patent Law (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions