CAnADA
Robert MacDonald and Konrad sechley
Gowlings
A YEAR of
BIG DECIsIons
Patents
Lundbeck, prior art was brought to the attention of the examiner during
prosecution that included a reference (Wenk) that was determined by
Several recent decisions in Canada have called into question the use of
the court to be relevant since it did not “teach away” from the invention.
statements in patent applications that make reference to unexpected results.
However, this art was not discussed during prosecution of the application.
Phrases such as “applicants have now discovered” or “[the product] displays
Rather, during prosecution, it was argued that “in light of the prior art
surprising and unexpected properties” have been deemed to lack proper
available at the time of fi ling…the teachings of the prior art as a whole
support as the invention was not found to be unique or outstanding over
would not have prompted the skilled person, faced with the problem…”
the prior art. Th erefore, the use of language that makes a promise in a
to the claimed invention. It was therefore concluded that even though the
specifi cation needs to be carefully considered and used only if supported by
Wenk reference “may have been identifi ed by the applicants’ patent agent
comparative data demonstrating an improvement. Th is is important in view
in earlier correspondence, [this] does not take away from the fact that the
of the suggestion by David Kappos, director of the US Patent and Trademark
statements made…were not a full, fair or complete depiction of the teaching
Offi ce, that inventors should “consider fi ling evidence of unexpected results”
of the prior art”.
to overcome obviousness in light of KSR International v. Telefl ex.
Eli Lilly v. Apotex provides another example of the importance of including
Copyright
supporting data within the specifi cation. A hypothetical human trial for
One of the most notable Canadian copyright cases of 2009 was the Satellite
the use of a compound to treat osteoporosis was provided as an example
Radio Services decision, which concerned the provision of subscription
without any supporting data. However, support for human effi cacy was
satellite radio services available to the US and parts of Canada. Some of the
published in an abstract prior to the fi ling date. Th e court concluded that
available channels were programmed from studios in Canada by operators
since the data was not included in the specifi cation, the patent lacked who selected the musical works to be played. Th e works in question were
adequate disclosure to support a claim to the use of the compound in a then uploaded to a content management system based in the US. In eff ect,
human. It is therefore advised that all relevant data be included within the the content programming was conceived and controlled in Canada but
specifi cation at the time of fi ling. actually produced, including making a copy of the relevant musical work,
on master servers in the US.
A disturbing trend regarding duty of candour of patent agents is highlighted
in the recent case of Lundbeck Canada v. Ratiopharm, which reinforces In considering whether the Canadian Copyright Act applied and a tariff
earlier comments made in G.D. Searle & Co et al v. Novopharm Limited. In could be imposed on the copies of the musical works made, the Copyright
46 World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 www.worldipreview.com
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173