THE COURT is the online resource for debate & data about the Supreme Court of Canada.*

Archive For Entries On Patents

Teva v Pfizer: How Viagra Allowed the SCC to Stiffen Patent Disclosure Requirements

Canadian patent law has undergone a number of significant developments throughout the past year, with numerous issues capturing the attention of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”). In particular, the issue of disclosure has undergone a great deal of juridical scrutiny. Disclosure constitutes a fundamental tenet of patent law aimed at striking a balance between […]

Appeal Watch: Hart, Three s. 8 PM(NOC) Cases and Thamby Denied Leave to Appeal

The Court Won’t Hear Court versus Church Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) refused to hear the case of Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Kingston, in Canada  2011 ONCA 728 [Hart]. While the church and the issue may be different, this case can be placed alongside Bentley v. […]

Hidden Agendas? Teva v Pfizer

In May of 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Teva Canada leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision, Teva v Pfizer, 2010 FCA 242. At issue is Patent ‘446 (July 2008; expires in 2014), which covers Pfizer’s sildenafil-based drug for treating erectile dysfunction (ED). Pfizer originally patented sildenafil in 1998 to treat […]

Amazon’s “One-Click” Patent Granted in Canada: A Case Comment on the Federal Court of Appeal Decision

The patentability of business methods has been a major source of controversy in Canadian patent law. While the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) had the opportunity to clarify the patentability of business methods in Canada (Attorney General) v, Inc, 2011 FCA 328, it left many questions unanswered, only affirming that business methods were not […]

A “One-Click” Patent: Canada (Finally) Opens-Up Possibility for Business Method Patents in, Inc v Attorney General

In a previous post on the US Supreme Court decision, Bilski et al v Kappos, No.08-964 545 F. 3d 943 [Bilski], I discussed how SCOTUS alluded to the possibility that “business methods” could be patented in the United States – a case that did not outline precisely what kinds of business methods entailed protection. Canadian courts, by […]

U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski et al. v. Kappos tap floodgates for “business methods patents”

On June 28, 2010, the US Supreme Court released its reasons in Bilski et al. v. Kappos, No.08-964 545 F. 3d 943 (PDF link) (“Bilski”). The case was widely followed, in particular, by intellectual property firms, as a decision widely favouring business method patents could have had serious ramifications on the patenting practices of future […]

Modern-Day David and Goliath Battle Could Head to U.S. Supreme Court: i4i v. Microsoft

Technology giant Microsoft Corp. has made one last-ditch effort to defend a decade-long patent infringement lawsuit against a small Canadian software company, i4i Inc.  Last week, Microsoft filed a petition (PDF link) with the US Supreme Court asking for a final resolution to the dispute.  In the suit, i4i alleges that Microsoft used the small […]

Apotex v Sanofi: SCC Softens Canadian Obviousness Test

Yesterday, Jeremy Barretto canvassed the Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) most recent decision in Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc, [2008] 3 SCR 265 [Apotex] concerning selection patents.  Since Jeremy already surveyed the facts, procedural history, and analyses of the case, I will focus today on the issue of obviousness, noting some distinctions between the obviousness standard set out […]

Apotex cannot stop sticky platelets without a patent

On Thursday November 6, 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released its decision in Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc, [2008] 3 SCR 265. This intellectual property case involves a dispute over selection patents between Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”), a generic drug manufacturer, and Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc (“Sanofi”) who held the original patent. TheCourt published […]

Patent Rights and “Public Order”

In Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [2002] 4 SCR 45 [Harvard College], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a genetically modified mouse was not a patentable invention under the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4. Harvard College had created a genetically modified mouse, known as the “oncomouse,” that […]