Let Me Help You With That: Inducing Patent Infringement in Canada
The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
Let Me Help You With That: Inducing Patent Infringement in Canada
Issue: Volume 26 no 2
Author(s): George R. Locke
Abstract:
Canada’s Patent Act, unlike patent statutes in the United States and the United Kingdom, does not provide explicitly for liability for inducing patent infringement. Nevertheless, it has long been understood that one who knowingly and for his or her own end and benefit induces or procures another to infringe a patent himself or herself infringes the patent. Over the past few decades, the issue of inducing infringement has become increasingly important in patent infringement actions. Canadian courts have developed a test for inducing patent infringement comprising three essential ingredients: (1) an act of infringement completed by a direct infringer; (2) completion of the infringing act was influenced by the inducer; and (3) the influence was knowingly exercised. Each of these essential ingredients has been discussed in detail in the jurisprudence. This article canvasses this jurisprudence and discusses some of the difficult questions that may arise in relation to each.
