UPDATE: Further to the below article, the Patent Rules have now been published in Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 156, Number 13. This issue of the Canada Gazette may be accessed here in HTML format, or here in PDF format.
As covered in the blog previously, Canada’s patent regime has been undergoing significant changes. Our earlier posts about these changes and what steps patentees can take to mitigate the impacts of these changes can be found here and here. The amendments are meant to reduce prosecution time and streamline the examination process.
As a strong supporter of the food and beverage industry, Fasken is pleased to invite you to view this episode of the Masterclass Series, presented by BC Food & Beverage (BCFB).
This video series features topics that will be of interest to producers, distributors and retailers in BC’s growing agribusiness, food and beverage industry.
Hear from Roger Kuypers and Janine McNeil, Trademark Agents at Fasken who discuss the importance of trademarks and how an effective trademark strategy is critical to your brand’s future growth and success.
Psychedelics are a class of psychoactive substances that produce changes in perception, mood and cognitive processes. Also so known as “hallucinogens”, reference to psychedelics is commonly meant to include substances such as Psilocybin (a.k.a. “magic mushroom”), MDMA (a.k.a. “extasy”) and LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide).
Likely following the lead of the ongoing legalisation of cannabis in Canada, many U.S. states and other countries, the recent years have seen unprecedented investments and an increasing interest in research, production, and supply of psychedelics, particularly for potential medicinal uses.
The present article aims to provide a brief overview of the current situation from a patent perspective and to discuss about patenting strategies for these substances.
The Government of Canada is proposing regulatory amendments to the Canadian Patent Rules. The proposed amendments were published on July 3, 2021 and the public has 30 days to provide comments. The final rules are expected to be published in fall 2021 and implemented in late 2021.
In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court (the “Court”), affirmed the enforceability of patent restrictive covenants (so-called “no-challenge clauses”) in settlement agreements.
In 2014, Loops L.L.C. and Loops Flexbrush L.L.C. (“Loops”) and Maxill Inc. (“Maxill”) entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a patent infringement action by Loops against Maxill. The agreement, governed by the laws of Canada and Ontario, contained a no-challenge clause in which Maxill agreed “not to directly or indirectly assist any person in attacking the validity” of certain Loops patents. Loops subsequently commenced actions in Ontario and Utah claiming Maxill breached the agreement and infringed a U.S. patent covered by the agreement. Loops filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction in the Ontario action. The motion judge dismissed the injunction request. The motion judge found that a strong prima facie case was lacking because Loops’ evidence was rebutted by the fact that the no-challenge clause was not reasonable in the public interest, based on U.S. caselaw principles.