Publication
La Cour suprême du Canada tranche : les cadres ne pourront se syndiquer au Québec
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
États-Unis | Publication | octobre 2021
In 2001, Csaba Truckai obtained a patent on a medical device for treating abnormal uterine bleeding. He assigned the patent and any continuations to his company Novacept. In 2004, Novacept sold Truckai's patent, which Hologic, Inc. subsequently acquired. Years later, Truckai obtained a patent on a new medical device, which used a moisture-impermeable applicator head, for treating the same condition. Truckai began marketing this device through his new company, Minerva Surgical, Inc. In the meantime, Hologic, Inc. obtained a continuation to Truckai's 2001 patent, which included a claim encompassing applicator heads, generally, without regard to moisture-permeability.
Hologic then sued Minerva, claiming that Truckai's new device infringed the continuation patent claim. Minerva argued that the continuation claim was invalid for lack of written description support and that assignor estoppel should not apply because the continuation claim was materially broader than the 2001 patent claims that Truckai assigned. The district court, however, found that the assignor estoppel doctrine barred Minerva from asserting invalidity, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that whether Hologic expanded the claim scope after Truckai assigned the 2001 patent was irrelevant.
The Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit's decision, holding that the appeals court applied assignor estoppel too broadly and "failed to recognize the doctrine's proper limits." Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2298, 2304, 2311 (2021). The Supreme Court upheld the assignor estoppel doctrine on the basis that "[i]f one lawfully conveys to another a patented right . . . fair dealing should prevent him from derogating from the title he has assigned." Id. at 2305 (quoting Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 350 (1924)). However, "[t]he doctrine applies when, but only when, the assignor's claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent." Minerva, 141 S. Ct. at 2302. Where the assignor makes no such representations, the assignor does not take an inconsistent position and, thus, assignor estoppel does not apply. See id. at 2310. The Supreme Court remanded Minerva and Hologic's dispute for the Federal Circuit to consider whether Hologic's continuation claims were materially broader. Id. at 2311.
Because the scope of claims in a patent application are less certainly defined than that of granted patent claims, an assignor might not warrant post-assignment claims' validity if such claims are materially broader than assigned claims. See id. at 2310. With this possibility in mind, it is recommend that employers:
The Supreme Court also explained that a present assignment of future inventions, such as within an employment agreement, may not provide sufficient warranties for assignor estoppel to apply. Id. The reason is that such an assignment might relate to inventions that do not yet exist, and thus there can be no representation that any future patent is valid. Id. It is therefore recommended that:
See Minerva, 141 S. Ct. at 2309 n.4 (explaining that “assignor estoppel furthers some patent policy goals. . . . [by] giv[ing] assignees confidence in the value of what they have purchased [and] rais[ing] the price of patent assignments”)
Publication
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Publication
Le budget 2024 propose d’élargir la portée de certains pouvoirs permettant à l’ARC de demander des renseignements aux contribuables tout en prévoyant de nouvelles conséquences pour les contribuables contrevenants.
Publication
L'impôt minimum de remplacement (IMR) est un impôt sur le revenu additionnel prévu dans la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada) (la « Loi ») auquel sont assujettis les particuliers et certaines fiducies qui pourraient autrement avoir recours à certaines déductions et exemptions et à certains crédits pour réduire leur impôt sur le revenu fédéral canadien régulier.
Abonnez-vous et restez à l’affût des nouvelles juridiques, informations et événements les plus récents...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023