MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP

MASTERPIECE INC. v. ALAVIDA LIFESTYLES INC. Masterpiece Inc. and Alavida Lifestyles Inc. (“Alavida”) are both involved in the retirement residence industry. Masterpiece Inc. claimed to have used unregistered trade-marks…more

On October 14, 2010, Justice Phelan of the Federal Court of Canada, released his decision ("the decision") in the case of Amazon.com v. The Attorney General of Canada and the Commissioner of Patents. This decision addresses…more

One of the more daunting tasks for any patent practitioner is to conduct a thorough search of the prior art. There are databases available that can help; some are available at no charge, while others are fee based. This article…more

Canadian jurisprudence clearly sets forth a prohibition against double patenting. Double patenting, in Canada, is simply not limited to “same invention double patenting” which applies in situations where the claims are identical…more

On October 14, 2010, Justice Phelan of the Federal Court of Canada, released the anxiously awaited decision ("the decision") in the case of Amazon.com v. The Attorney Ageneral of Canada and the Commissioner of Patents…more

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) released a revised Chapter 16 of the Manual of Patent Office Practice (MOPOP) relating to computer-implemented inventions on October 1, 2010. This chapter outlines the examination…more

This is an article by Mr. James Wagner of MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP regarding Recycled Use and how Utility Must be Claimed and Supported…more

A summary relating to the Practice Notice released by The Trade-marks on September 2, 2010, to clarify its practice with respect to priority claims…more

After much anticipation, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in the case of Bilski v. Kappos on June 28, 2010. The decision has wide-ranging implications for the patentability of business methods in the U.S., chief…more

When conducting an obviousness inquiry the framing of the inventive concept may drive the result…more

This presentation will provide an overview of significant changes in Canadian patent formalities practice, including cases from the Federal Court. In short, defects in formalities and applicant practice before the Canadian…more

On March 5, 2010 Heath Canada released its “Guidance for Sponsors: Information and Submission Requirements for Subsequent Entry Biologics [“SEBs”][1] in order to enable sponsors to satisfy the information and regulatory…more

A dispute regarding the ownership of a U.S. patent and whether there was a breach of confidence were considered by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Aram Systems Ltd. v. NovAtel Inc…more

Proposed amendments to the Canadian Patent Rules are moving forward as anticipated (see September 2009 newsletter). The amendments were published in Part II of the Canada Gazette on December 9, 2009 and are scheduled to come…more

Strict compliance with the formal requirements specified under Canadian Patent legislation has been confirmed. In Unicrop Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 61, a decision of the Federal Court released January 20, 2010,…more