Canada Culture TV

CULTURE NUMÉRIQUE – DIGITAL CULTURE

  • Français
  • Cyber-Incidents
  • Litigation
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Metaverse
  • Français
  • Cyber-Incidents
  • Litigation
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Metaverse

No Widgets found in the Sidebar Alt!

Archives

  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • December 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020

Categories

  • Art
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Cyber-Incidents
  • Entertainment
  • Français
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Metaverse
  • Psychology
  • Reform
  • Remote Work Privacy
  • Uncategorized
  • Privilege in IP Litigation

    December 29, 2021 /

    Section 16.1(1) of the Patent Act was last amended in 2016 to extend privilege to communications made for the purpose of seeking or giving advice with respect to any matter relating to the proection of an invention. In Janssen Inc and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp v. Sandoz Canaa Inc., 2021 FC 1265, the Federal Court was asked to interpreted the new section 16.1(1) in order to assess the scope of privilege to be applied to communications with a patent agent. The Federal Court found that the new section excludes a “non-infringement opinion for a product”, finding that communications relating to the protection of an invention do not extend to an…

    read more
    Rossita StoyaNova

    You May Also Like

    Miramax and Tarantino Lawsuit To Clarify NFT Rights

    August 22, 2022

    Augmented Reality Art Exhibitions

    July 29, 2021

    UK Law Society, Future Worlds 2050

    July 1, 2021
  • EPO Refuses To Name AI as Inventor On Patent Applications

    December 28, 2021 /

    (Press Release) Last week, the Legal Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office announced its decision to dismiss the appeal in cases J 8/20 and J 9/20. The Legal Board of Appeal confirmed the decisions of the Receiving Section of the European Patent Office to refuse the applications EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174, in which an artificial intelligence system called DABUS was designated as inventor in the application forms. The Legal Board of Appeal also refused the auxiliary request according to which no person had been identified as inventor but merely a natural person was indicated to have “the right to the European Patent by virtue of being the owner and creator of”…

    read more
    Rossita StoyaNova

    You May Also Like

    Copyrighting Copywrongs Caused By Notice+Notice – DMCA Bots

    July 31, 2021

    Protected: New York Court of Appeal: No Habeas Corpus for Happy The Elephant, 2 Judges Dissent

    June 20, 2022

    UK Law Society, Future Worlds 2050

    July 1, 2021

Recent Posts

  • Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, More Fair Use Before SCOTUS
  • Facebook Hit With $175M Patent Infringement Verdict In Instagram Live
  • Galaxy Report On NFT Rights; What About Web3 to Web2 User Generated Content
  • Miramax and Tarantino Lawsuit To Clarify NFT Rights
  • $23M Royalties Scam On Youtube – Tip of The Iceberg – Reveals Voluntary Blindness
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Email
Ashe Theme by WP Royal.