The Federal Court recently dismissed Servier's application for a prohibition order under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations for Canadian Patent 2,423,825 regarding a perindopril arginine/amlodipine product (Servier's Viacoram). Apotex had alleged that the patent was invalid for obviousness, overbreadth, inutility and insufficiency.
In a step towards ratifying the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the government recently introduced Bill C-100, entitled "An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States", in Parliament. If ratified, the USMCA will replace the North American Free Trade Agreement and will require several changes to Canada's IP laws.
The China National Intellectual Property Administration has released the Draft Amendment to the Patent Examination Guidelines. The draft proposes revisions to both substantive and procedural aspects in preliminary examination, substantive examination and invalidation proceedings regarding patents. This article analyses the major proposed changes to patent examinations.
A recent IP High Court case concerned the cancellation of a trademark registration due to a non-exclusive licensee's improper use of the registered mark. Cases regarding cancellation based on Article 53 of the Trademark Act are rare, and cases in which requests to cancel a trademark registration on this basis are granted are even more so. As such, this case is an interesting example of how the IP High Court determines improper use of a registered trademark.
Mexico recently became the first country to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Chapter 20 of which is one of the most comprehensive IP chapters in any trade agreement. Although the 2018 amendments to Mexico's IP laws provided for most of the specific rights required under the USMCA, the country still has a lot to do to provide for the obligations regarding geographical indications, data exclusivity, trade secrets and enforcement.
The District Court of Gelderland recently rendered a judgment on the subject of unauthorised agent or representative filings. It deemed that a third party was so closely involved in the distribution agreement between two other parties that it could be ordered to transfer the trademarks that it had registered unauthorised, despite the third party arguing that it could not be regarded as an agent, representative or distributor of the two other parties.