 |
| X v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) | |
|---|---|
| Court | Federal Court of Appeal |
| Decided | November 16, 1981 |
| Citation | [1981] F.C.J. No. 1013, 59 C.P.R. (2d) 7 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Thurlow C.J., Ryan J., and Kelly D.J. |
| Keywords | |
| Patent, Utility | |
X v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) is a decision by the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the utility requirement for patenting an invention in Canada.
The patent application in issue was for a "death ray", more particularly, a device that creates a path of ionized air using a laser beam to transmit electrical energy without wires.
The invention had not been constructed by the inventor because of the significant cost of doing so. The Commissioner of Patents refused the patent application on the ground that the death ray was "inoperable for the purpose for which it was designed."
Chief Justice Thurlow, for the Court, found that the patent did not disclose how a technical challenge would be addressed and was not written clearly enough to enable a person skilled in the art to make or use the invention. In addition, he concluded the Commissioner's comments concerning the absence of a working model of the invention and describing the invention as an abstract theorem were obiter and were not relevant to the application's refusal.
In view of the above, the Court dismissed the inventor's appeal and affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Patents.
A software patent is a patent on a piece of software, such as a computer program, libraries, user interface, or algorithm.
The OncoMouse or Harvard mouse is a type of laboratory mouse that has been genetically modified using modifications designed by Philip Leder and Timothy A Stewart of Harvard University to carry a specific gene called an activated oncogene. The activated oncogene significantly increases the mouse's susceptibility to cancer, and thus makes the mouse a suitable model for cancer research.
In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement. As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines.
Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.
Patent prosecution describes the interaction between applicants and their representatives, and a patent office with regard to a patent, or an application for a patent. Broadly, patent prosecution can be split into pre-grant prosecution, which involves arguing before, and sometimes negotiation with, a patent office for the grant of a patent, and post-grant prosecution, which involves issues such as post-grant amendment and opposition.
Sufficiency of disclosure or enablement is a patent law requirement that a patent application disclose a claimed invention in sufficient detail so that the person skilled in the art could carry out that claimed invention. The requirement is fundamental to patent law: a monopoly is granted for a given period of time in exchange for a disclosure to the public how to make or practice the invention.
The United States is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the world. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.
Japanese patent law is based on the first-to-file principle and is mainly given force by the Patent Act of Japan. Article 2 defines an invention as "the highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing the law of nature".
Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 153, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the utility requirement for a patent in Canada. The Court rejected a challenge by the generic drug manufacturers Novopharm and Apotex to declare Glaxo Wellcome's patent for AZT, an AIDS-fighting drug, invalid.
This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or their successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.
Canadian patent law is the legal system regulating the granting of patents for inventions within Canada, and the enforcement of these rights in Canada.
A patent application or patent may contain drawings, also called patent drawings, illustrating the invention, some of its embodiments, or the prior art. The drawings may be required by the law to be in a particular form, and the requirements may vary depending on the jurisdiction.
In Canada, every patent application must include the “specification”. The patent specification has three parts: the disclosure, the claims, and the abstract. The contents of the specification are crucial in patent litigation.
Tennessee Eastman Co v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [1974] S.C.R. 111, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada authority for the proposition that medical or therapeutic methods are not patentable in Canada.
Teva Canada Ltd v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2012 SCC 60 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the disclosure requirements for a patent in Canada.
Schlumberger Canada Ltd v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) is a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the patentability of software inventions within the context of the Patent Act (Canada). At issue was the patentability of a method of combining and analyzing borehole measurements for oil and gas exploration using a computer programmed according to mathematical formulas. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the use of a computer "does not change the nature" of the discovered invention and that the process at issue was a "mere scientific principle or abstract theorem" and therefore not an "invention" within the meaning of the Patent Act.
Amazon.com Inc v Canada is a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the patentability of business methods within the context of the Patent Act. At issue was the patentability of a method that allowed customers shopping online to make purchases with one-click buying.
The Atomic Energy Generation Device Case (原子力エネルギー発生装置事件) is a 1969 decision of the Supreme Court of Japan concerning the patentability of a method of transformation of atomic nuclei. All members of the patent family had been granted in other countries, and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) did not find any prior art which could destroy the novelty and inventive step of claimed inventions. However, the JPO rejected the patent application as being lack of industrial safety requirements. This is the first Japanese Supreme Court case concerning patentable subject matter.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to patents:
DABUS is an artificial intelligence (AI) system created by Stephen Thaler. It reportedly conceived of two novel products — a food container constructed using fractal geometry, which enables rapid reheating, and a flashing beacon for attracting attention in an emergency. The filing of patent applications designating DABUS as inventor has led to decisions by patent offices and courts on whether a patent can be granted for an invention reportedly made by an AI system.