Osgoode Hall Review of Law and Policy (OHRLP)

In Apotex Inc v Sanofi‑Synthelabo Canada Inc 2008 SCC 61, the Supreme Court held, affirming the lower courts, that allegations that Sanofi’s patent for a blood anti-coagulant was invalid for obviousness and lack of novelty were unjustified.  In doing so, the Court modified the criteria of anticipation and obviousness found in Beloit Canada Ltd v Valmet OY (1986), 8 CPR(3d) 289 (Fed CA), to align them more closely with European and American practice.  The Court found that the lower courts had erred in not recognizing that anticipation requires both disclosure and enablement, and that obviousness may require an investigation into whether or not it was “more or less self-evident” to try the course that led to the invention.  The English 5-step method of analyzing obviousness was adopted. The decision, while based on a pre-1989 patent, seems to apply equally to post-1989 ones.  The paper takes the opportunity of discussing other statements in Beloit that have sometimes been misunderstood.  It concludes by applauding the lack of discussion about the invention’s commercial success on the issue of unobviousness.

David Vaver, Being Old and Obvious: Apotex v. Sanofi-Synthelabo in the Supreme Court (2010) Osgoode Hall Rev. L. Pol’y 3.

This paper will consider the principle grounds on which the validity of selection patents are attacked, namely anticipation, obviousness, double patenting, lack of utility and insufficiency, with a view to exploring the doctrinal underpinnings for challenging a selection patent as an “improper selection”. As will be discussed further below, “improper selection” comfortably fits within existing grounds of invalidity and, in particular, obviousness, lack of utility and, surprisingly, ambiguity.

Anna Wilkinson, Improper Selection: A Separate Ground of Patent Invalidity in Canada? (2010) Osgoode Hall Rev. L. Pol’y 19.

Les régimes de protection intellectuelle des obtentions végétales passent souvent inaperçus, malgré leur importance socio-économique, légale et environnementale. À une époque où le brevet tente de s’imposer dans le secteur de l’agriculture, où les grandes espèces sont déjà brevetées et où le voisin immédiat du Canada s’érige en paradis du monopole, y a-t-il un avenir pour le régime de la Loi sur la protection des obtentions végétales? Cet article analyse les deux vagues majeures de législation entourant la protection et la stimulation des investissements dans le domaine des obtentions végétales au Canada et dans l’Union européenne. Avec la mort au feuilleton du Projet de modification de la Loi sur la protection des obtentions végétales en vue de la rendre conforme à la Convention de 1991 de l'UPOV et les perturbations politiques canadiennes, le gouvernement risque de laisser une fois de plus ce débat de côté, mais il pourrait aussi saisir l’occasion pour modifier son régime et ainsi remplir des impératifs environnementaux, économiques et moraux. Le Canada pourrait-il saisir sa chance et devenir un acteur de premier plan? Qui plus est, que peut-on apprendre et transposer d’un régime de propriété intellectuelle sectoriel vers un régime général?

Régine Tremblay, La Loi sur la protection des obtentions végétales; entre compétitivité et utopie y a-t-il un avenir pour le modèle? (2010) Osgoode Hall Rev. L. Pol’y 59.

There has been ongoing international debate regarding the patentability of software for at least 15 years.  Despite being bound by international laws, which deal directly with the patentability of software (TRIPS), individual countries continue to justify vastly different legislative and practical patent regimes in this field of innovation.  In a very traditional and conservative fashion Canada has placed itself carefully on the fence in this debate adopting an approach which falls somewhere between that of the U.S. and Europe, providing little practical guidance for businesses, lawyers or software developers in the industry.  This paper seeks to establish an approach, solution and justification for the correction of these problems.

Discussion in the area of software patents is often based substantially around patent law theory and statistical analysis.  Such approaches disregard the context in which these laws operate.  As a direct consequence the connection between software patents and innovation remains an area of substantial conjecture.  As the basis for policy decisions this non-contextual approach leaves much to be desired.  In Canada this situation is amplified by the fact that few significant efforts have been made to study the legal effects of patents on the Canadian software sector. 

Recognizing the gap between theory and practice this paper seeks to marry the academic debate over software patentability with concrete Canadian perspectives from inside the industry.  To this end primary research based on personal interviews with representatives from three software companies, with innovation offices in Canada, is used to shed a contextual, Canadian and practical light on U.S. and EU patent law theory. The trend which emerged from these interviews was that Canadian software companies generally find software patents detrimental to their business objectives.  Given the small sample size, confirmation of this trend within the broader Canadian software industry is not possible and further research is required in order to substantiate this papers recommendations.  However, assuming that the software companies interviewed are representative of the Canadian software industry then the detrimental trend identified aligns the Canadian software industry with non-innovation theories of software patentability.  This allows the paper to justifiably conclude that Canada should not extend patentability to software or in the alternative that a carefully considered extension of patent law which responds systemically to the unique needs of the software industry and other emerging technologies may be appropriate.  Most importantly the paper stresses the practical importance of active contextual research during the development of clear and strong guidelines related to the patentability of software in Canada.

Conrad Delbert Seaman,Contextualizing the Software Patent Debate in Canada: A Practical Approach to Policy Development (2010) Osgoode Hall Rev. L. Pol’y 97.

Liability for patent infringement is statutorily limited to the term of the patent.  However nothing limits recovery to losses suffered during that same term.  Since patent infringement is tort-like in many respects, traditional damages principles apply to quantify damages suffered after the expiry of the patent.  Recent Canadian and English case law has indicated a willingness to consider such recovery.  Consequently, the courts may be far less willing to grant springboarding injunctions.  Patentees seeking to prevent springboarders must satisfy the tripartite interlocutory injunction test, which requires demonstration of irreparable harm.  Since post-expiry losses may now be considered quantifiable and recoverable, a patentee will seldom demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm.  This article argues that losses suffered after a patent has expired due to pre-expiry infringement of that patent are recoverable and that the recoverability of post-expiry patent losses will all but preclude the availability of interlocutory injunctions to restrain springboard infringement.

Kiernan A. Murphy, Post-expiry Patent Losses: Recoverable, but Unpreventable? (2010) Osgoode Hall Rev. L. Pol’y 133.