1. As a follow-up to two previous posts on Apotex v. Merck and the noninfringing alternative defense in Canada (see here and here), Norman Siebrasse published an interesting post last week on Sufficient Description questioning why Canada's Federal Court of Appeal seems to premise the availability of the defense on the defendant's not having infringed intentionally. I agree with Professor Siebrasse that intent shouldn't be relevant to this issue, though (like Professor Siebrasse) I am happy that the court accepted, in principle, the relevance of noninfringing alternatives to the calculation of patent damages. Now if only someone could convince the courts in the U.K. to follow suit. For one of my periodic gripes on U.K. practice in this regard, see here. For my previous post on the Apotex case, see here.
2. On SpicyIP, Kiran George has published an interesting post on punitive damages for trademark infringement in India, which makes for a nice sequel to Prashant Reddy's post on which I blogged here.
2. On SpicyIP, Kiran George has published an interesting post on punitive damages for trademark infringement in India, which makes for a nice sequel to Prashant Reddy's post on which I blogged here.
No comments:
Post a Comment