Whether this is a simple case of the cost of doing business or just another case of insisting that Internet service providers and search engines become Internet police, there should be better parameters in place to protect the freedom of speech and prevent the abuse of the system.
The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., et al. on December 6, 2016. The proceedings were webcast live. The case began in British Columbia and proceeded to the Supreme Court via Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc., 2015 BCCA 265, heard on October 27 and 28, 2014, with additional submissions on December 4, 22, and 23, 2014 and a final judgment from the British Columbia Court of Appeal on June 11, 2015. This case’s importance was summed up by Michael Geist in The Globe and Mail on December 13, 2016: “a case that strikes at the heart of law in the online world.” The case garners international interest because of the scope of its central concern about jurisdiction in relation to the Internet. Does any country - in this case Canada - have the authority to block search results outside its own borders?
The case stems from a dispute between Equustek Solutions Inc. and Data link Technologies Gateways LLC (Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, 2012 BCSC 1490). The two entities had been in business together for a number of years with Equustek designing and manufacturing industrial network interface products and Data link acting as distributors and sales agents. When this relationship broke down, Equustek took over its own marketing, and Data link developed an interface heavily reliant on that developed by Equustek. The competing product, GW1000, was designed using Equustek’s trade secrets. Equustek sought a Mareva injunction to protect its trade secrets which Justice R Punnett granted.
This story is from the January - February 2017 Issue edition of IP ERA.
Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 9,000+ magazines and newspapers.
Already a subscriber ? Sign In
This story is from the January - February 2017 Issue edition of IP ERA.
Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 9,000+ magazines and newspapers.
Already a subscriber? Sign In
Germany Hailed as an Arena for Solving International Patent Disputes
Indian companies can enforce patents in Germany not only in cases where the opponent operates in Germany but also in cases where activities of the opponent have bearing on Germany. Even in a litigation where Germany is only marginally affected, Indian patentees may have a standing in Germany and be able to sue opponents from foreign countries such as USA, Japan, China and even India.
Playing the Balancing Game
In order to attract foreign investment and encourage technology transfer, the government needs to take both consumers’ and private sector’s interests into account. There is no doubt that a balance is needed such that exclusive rights are protected but at the same time, this ‘should not’ lead to abuse of dominant position by the rights’ holder.
Biological Diversity Act, 2002: An Overview
A look at the provisions and regulations issued under this Act that came into force entirely in 2004 mainly to give effect to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity held at Rio De Janeiro in 1992.
Flying high: PTAB's Pilot Program For One-Judge Reviews
The pilot program proposed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a winwin for both patent owners and the PTAB as it offers the former a chance to try one’s case before an objective trial-phase panel, while the latter stands to benefit too as two of three judges who would have been involved in the institution phase of an IPR are now free to look into other matters…
IP-led Innovation As Driver Of Indian Economy: The Role Of Businesses
Given the new policy initiatives by the Government of India that provide significant opportunity, Indian companies must develop IP-based innovative products and solutions that lead to business and economic growth.
