In the latest decision in a longstanding patent dispute involving
CES alleged infringement of Canadian Patent 2,624,834 in the Federal Court (T-209-18). Secure believed it owned the '834 patent because: 1) the true inventor made the invention while working at a company whose assets were purchased by Secure; or 2) the named inventor (who also worked at the predecessor company) misappropriated confidential information in making the invention.
Concerned about the Federal Court's jurisdiction, the parties moved to the Alberta Courts to determine the ownership dispute (ACKB File no. 41801-09532). The Alberta Courts dismissed Secure's ownership allegations based upon misappropriation of confidential information but permitted the parties to return to the Federal Court to determine ownership based upon wrong inventorship pursuant to s. 52 of the Patent Act (
In a s. 52 application,
CES has appealed
Concurrently, CES commenced a judicial review alleging that the Commissioner of Patents erred by giving effect to
CES argued that because
Manson J. instead found that the Commissioner of Patents has an overriding duty to accurately maintain the Patent Office Records and as such was obligated to give effect to
Secure was represented by
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Seastone IP
Seastone IP
Suite
BC V6C 2V6
Tel: 604787 0526
URL: www.seastoneip.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source