Recent amendments to Alberta’s Health Information Act, and related regulations, come into force on September 1, 2010. The amendments touch on a range of issues including the applicability of the statute, sharing of electronic health records, the creation of health information repositories and additional investigative powers for the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta.
Continue Reading...The Code of Conduct for the Credit and Debit Card Industry seeks to promote transparency and fairness for merchants and consumers.
The Code of Conduct for the Credit and Debit Card Industry which came into effect on August 16, 2010 aims to increase transparency and fairness for both merchants and consumers who use credit and debit cards. Applicable to credit and debit systems and their participants, payment networks that choose to adopt the Code will be subject to monitoring by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to ensure compliance.
Continue Reading...Eli Lilly, the plaintiff in a patent infringement action, was successful in appealing a decision of the Federal Court which had found Eli Lilly’s Canadian Letters Patent No. 2,041,113 (the ‘113 Patent) relating to the medicine olanzapine (Zyprexa) invalid on the basis that it was not a proper selection patent. The core issue on appeal raised a single question: do the conditions for a valid selection patent constitute an independent basis upon which to attack the validity of a patent?
Eli Lilly had previously received a patent (the ‘687 Patent) in 1980 covering approximately 15 trillion thienobenzodiazapine compounds, the properties of which were said to be useful for treating mild anxiety and certain psychotic conditions. Although olanzapine was encompassed within the scope of the ‘687 Patent, it was not specifically disclosed. Following the issuance of the ‘687 Patent, Eli Lilly eventually ceased its studies on the compounds specifically identified in that patent, but began to synthesize seven new compounds, of which olanzapine was the most promising.
This decision underscores the importance of filing proper disclaimers to patent claims. Disclaimers may be filed with the patent office by a patentee after the issuance of a patent to unilaterally renounce or disclaim those portions of the claimed invention that were inadvertently included within the scope of the claims as a result of mistake, accident or inadvertence. Disclaimers therefore have the effect of narrowing the scope of the claims (i.e. the area where competitors may not tread). Disclaimers that attempt to broaden the scope of a claim are invalid.
In the present case, soon after the issuance on October 5, 1999 of Canadian patent number 2,169,670 (the ‘670 patent) relating to telephone line couplers used to connect electronic equipment to phone lines while providing electrical isolation, the appellant patentee Paradox Security Systems Ltd. (Paradox) sent a demand letter to the respondent Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd. (Tyco) alleging patent infringement. Tyco denied all allegations of infringement and asserted that the ‘670 patent was invalid. On October 6, 2003, Paradox filed a disclaimer to certain claims.
Continue Reading...Bill C-29, a proposed amendment to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA” or the “Act”), seeks to enhance the private-sector privacy legislation in Canada.
Bill C-29 which was first read on May 25, 2010, is expected to provide clarification for insurers, corporations and federal employers, who under the existing PIPEDA provisions have voiced uncertainty as to what investigative steps they can take without violating Canadian privacy laws. The current PIPEDA provisions allow for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information, without consent, only when there is a breach of contract or law. The Privacy Commissioner has been of the view that under the current PIPEDA provisions, the mere suspicion of a crime or a breach of contract is not grounds for an investigation in the private-sector.
If passed, Bill C-29 proposes amendments which include clarification of the meaning of “lawful authority” pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, and the collection and use of witness statements where it is necessary for an insurance claim. Ultimately, the Bill would permit organizations to access this information without the knowledge or consent of an individual for the purposes of preventing fraud and other unlawful activity. Amendments to the Act contained in Bill C-29 would affect mainly those involved in insurance, employment, and corporate due-diligence investigations.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada et al., 2010 FC 736
On July 9, 2010, the Federal Court of Canada restricted the scope of the definition of “commercial activity” under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when it was asked to determine whether the provisions of PIPEDA apply to evidence collected by an insurer, on behalf of an insured, in a tort action.
Continue Reading...Picard v. The Commissioner of Patents and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, 2010 FC 86
Frédéric Picard brought an application in the Federal Court under subsection 77(1) of the Official Languages Act (Act) against the Canadian Intellectual Property Office and the Commissioner of Patents claiming that patents and patent applications must be bilingual to meet the requirements of the legislation. He sought an order requiring the Patent Office to make certain parts of patents and patent applications available in both official languages and a declaration of invalidity of all patents available in one official language only, to be suspended to allow the Patent Office to make the invalidated patent applications and patents available in both languages. Justice Tremblay-Lamer found that the Patent Office had not met the requirements under section 44 of the Act relating to the duty of all federal institutions to take positive measures to foster “the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.” She concluded that “the fact that patents exist only in one official language deprives Canadian who do not speak that language of information that is important in both legal and scientific terms.” In considering the appropriate remedy for this violation, she acknowledged the cost associated with translating all patents and applications. The Federal Court therefore ordered that the Commissioner must at least “make available an unofficial translation of the abstract of all patents he issues” to be in compliance with the Act. While the Court was not prepared to require that all aspects of the patent be translated, abstracts will have to be prepared in both official languages.
Enter keywords:
