E-TIPS

A computerized checkers program named Chinook, after running continuously for 18 years on as many as 200 processors at once, has been shown to be unbeatable. Any opponent, no matter whether the human variety or another computer, can only hope to achieve a draw against the program.

On June 22, 2007 Bill C-47, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, ( reported in a previous issue of E-TIPS ®, “Canadian Government Set to Enact Special Restrictions on Olympic Words and Symbols”, Vol 5, Number 18 , March 14, 2007), received Royal Assent.

On June 7, 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Novopharm Limited v Janssen-Ortho Inc 2007 FCA 217. Novopharm Limited (Novopharm) had appealed the Federal Court's decision that Canadian Patent No 1,204,080 (the '080 patent) was valid and had been infringed by Novopharm. Claim 4 of the "˜080 patent, which claimed S(-)ofloxacin or levofloxacin, was the only claim at issue in both the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions.

On July 3, 2007, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced a new framework for the creation and operation of a national, telephone do-not-call list (DNCL). The announcement does not specify when the registry will come into existence and many observers believe that the exemptions included in the registry will leave it without sufficient teeth.

In November, 2005, the Federal Court of Canada decided a significant trade-mark dispute involving Section 9 official marks. Canada Post Corporation (Canada Post) brought an application to judicially review decisions of the Canadian Registrar of Trade-marks to notify the public of its adoption of 13 official marks owned by the United States Postal Service (USPS) pursuant to Section 9(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act.

In the first known successful prosecution for murder incited over the Internet, three men in Britain have been sentenced to a total of 24 years in prison.

In Pfizer Canada Inc v The Minister of Health and Apotex, 2007 FC 642, the Federal Court of Canada considered whether a patent holder, Pfizer Canada Inc (Pfizer), could prohibit a generic manufacturer from obtaining regulatory approval to market a generic drug despite the failure of the patent owner to obtain authority to sell its own drug for the use protected by the patent. Pfizer had brought an application under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations to prevent the Minister of Health (Minister) from issuing a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Apotex Inc (Apotex) for the drug quinapril (intending to market it under the name Apo-Quinapril) until the expiry of Canadian Patent 2,023,089 ("˜089 Patent).

On October 2002, members of the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) consortium formed a technical committee to develop open XML protocols for digital signatures operating in a Web services environment. Their primary purpose was to enable web services to produce and verify digital signatures.

In Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Novopharm Limited et al (2007 FC 596), Justice Hughes of the Federal Court held that it was not an abuse of process for Novopharm Limited (Novopharm) to serve a second Notice of Allegation (NOA) on Eli Lilly Canada Inc (Lilly) after Novopharm withdrew its first NOA days before Novopharm's evidence was due. Novopharm did not provide any explanation why it withdrew the first NOA.

French government security experts have reportedly banned the use of the BlackBerry ® handheld device in ministries and in the Presidential palace based on the concern that the devices are vulnerable to snooping by US intelligence agencies.

In the past few weeks, two new chapters have been written in the ongoing dispute among the generic manufacturer Apotex and innovators Sanofi-Aventis (Sanofi) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (B-MS), over blood thinner Plavix. As previously discussed in E-TIPS®, Apotex reached a patent settlement agreement with Sanofi and B-MS, in which it would delay market entry of generic Plavix in exchange for remuneration. The deal was subsequently rejected by US state Attorneys General (See E-TIPS®, "Questions Remain Over the Legality of Patent Settlement Agreements" Vol 5, No 5, August 30, 2006).

On June 18, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down a decision on e-mail privacy that has broad implications for communications providers and law enforcement.

Inspection by the HPFBI – Will it be Predictable and Uniform? (PDF Format) By Sue Diaz

Law and Regulatory: Synergy and Conflict (PDF) By Gordon S. Jeppson

Federal Court of Canada Re-examines Test of Obviousness in Patent law (PDF Format) By Michael Migus

BC Drafts New Rules on International Outsourcing of Personal Information (PDF Format) By Jason Young

Living Rooms are not Public Spaces – Case Comment R. v. Clark (PDF Format) By Jason Young

DNA Samples – Make Believe Privacy in a Technological World – Case Comment R. v. Rodgers (PDF) By Jason Young

Cross-Border Outsourcing: Privacy Commissioner gives Green Light to Cross-Border Outsourcing of Personal Information; Raises Questions (PDF Format) By Jason Young

Prognosticating Privacy Protection (PDF) By Jason Young