597:
experiment with it in the meanwhile. Thus, a patent holder who holds back essential information invalidates the whole patent. The disclosure would also be insufficient if it is simply wrong and a person skilled in the art cannot use the disclosure or her general ability to replicate the invention. If a person skilled in the art would readily spot the mistake or omission and quickly correct it by using common general knowledge and the rest of the patent, but without "prolonged research, inquiry or experiment" or inventiveness, then this will not invalidate a patent.
796:(2) Where it appears to a court that the omission or addition referred to in subsection (1) was an involuntary error and it is proved that the patentee is entitled to the remainder of his patent, the court shall render a judgment in accordance with the facts, and shall determine the costs, and the patent shall be held valid for that part of the invention described to which the patentee is so found to be entitled.
28:
559:(b) set out clearly the various steps in a process, or the method of constructing, making, compounding or using a machine, manufacture or composition of matter, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it pertains, or with which it is mostly closely connected, to make, construct, compound or use it;
793:(1) A patent is void if any material allegation in the petition of the applicant in respect of the patent is untrue, or if the specification and drawings contain more or less than is necessary for obtaining the end for which they purport to be made, and the omission or addition is wilfully made for the purpose of misleading
804:
stipulates that the specifications and drawings should contain only what is needed to describe, disclose, and exemplify the inventions. Any omissions or additions made wilfully “for the purpose of misleading” invalidate the patent. Innocent errors in the specifications and drawings thus appear not to
719:
In Canada, a specialized examiner will check the specification against the documents in the patent office's extensive library and other public sources, and decide whether a patent should be granted. Anything that would invalidate an issued patent bars the initial grant. As
Professor Vaver explains:
764:
An applicant may overcome objections to the application by argument or amendment. If the examiner is satisfied, the application is allowed and a patent is issued. If the examiner is not satisfied, the examiner will issue a final action letter, with reasons for rejecting the application. A rejection
605:
As part of their duty of full disclosure and good faith, inventors must reveal their best mode, or "preferred embodiment", of using the invention, even if that mode is not claimed in the patent application. The mode must be the best one the inventor knows at the claim date, and must be well enough
662:
Thus, the game for patent holders is to reveal as little as possible, while claiming as much as possible. The less that is disclosed, the more that can be retained and serve as a competitive edge. The wider the claims, the tougher it is for competitors not to infringe, however, the patent holder
729:
All patent offices see their job as granting, not rejecting, patents. Thus, an examiner's objections are directed at ensuring that a valid patent issue. The patent office can reject an application only if it is positively satisfied that the applicant is not by law entitled to a patent. This is a
657:
Predicting how a court will assess the technology and conflicting expert evidence on meaning and then figure out a claim's "true" meaning is close to soothsaying - or, as one court put it less succinctly, "an intracranial iterative process, involving multiple factors, including natural meaning,
617:
at s 27(3)(c)). This led one court to recently confine the doctrine to machines while admitting that "common sense and fair play" would extend this duty to all inventions. Some authors such as
Professor Vaver argue that this revisionism seems wrong given prior case law and the Supreme Court of
808:
The petition for a patent must be truthful in that a false “material allegation” invalidates the patent. This requirement applies only to false allegations in the petition itself. Misstatements elsewhere are excluded, although a misstatement elsewhere may invalidate a patent for other reasons
596:
can arrive at the same results only through chance or further long experiments, the disclosure is insufficient and the patent is void. The disclosure must give skilled readers enough information for them to easily use the invention when the patent expires, and for them to try to improve on or
645:
Anything outside the fence is public domain: "what is not claimed is disclaimed." Since each claim is an independent grant of monopoly, one or more may be found invalid without necessarily affecting the validity of any other. This system leads inevitably to inventors claiming the broadest
738:
Whenever the
Commissioner is satisfied that an applicant is not by law entitled to be granted a patent, he shall refuse the application and, by registered letter addressed to the applicant or his registered agent, notify the applicant of the refusal and of the ground or reason
680:
The general rule is "one invention, one application, one patent". However, multiple claims covering all facets are allowed in the same patent if a "single inventive concept" links them. If more than one invention is disclosed, the application can be split into two or more
724:
All aspects of patentability are checked: Is this an “invention”? Is it new, unobvious, useful? Does the application fully disclose the invention? Do the claims fairly reflect the invention, or are they too broad? Is there perhaps a common law or
Charter bar to the
671:
The abstract section summarizes the invention's purpose. The abstract should describe the technical problem and the solution of the problem by the invention in a succinct way so that a reader can decide whether the rest of the patent is of interest.
685:", each claiming the requisite one invention. One invention does not become two inventions just because it is contained in another product. Professor Vaver provides the following example to illustrate the point:
697:
can insist on division or the applicant may divide on his or her own initiative. A wrong decision by an applicant can cause severe problems and may even risk invalidation of the patent(s).
642:
Thus, the claims require the patent applicant to stake out the monopoly sought. Claims are sometimes analogized as a series of "fences" surrounding and protecting the valuable invention.
638:
he specification must end with a claim or claims defining distinctly and in explicit terms the subject-matter of the invention for which an exclusive privilege or property is claimed".
755:
to stress that this is not a matter of discretion: the
Commissioner has to justify any refusal. As Duff C.J. said in Vanity Fair Silk Mills v. Commissioner of Patents (at p. 246):
714:
54:
49:
706:
564:(c) in the case of a machine, explain the principle of the machine and the best mode in which the inventor has contemplated the application of that principle; and
73:
190:
96:
1430:
649:
In order to determine whether a claim is infringed or invalid, the Court will read the claims and give them a meaning through a process referred to as "
569:(d) in the case of a process, explain the necessary sequence, if any, of the various steps, so as to distinguish the invention from other inventions
689:
a compact automobile is not separately patentable just because it houses a myriad of independent inventions that contribute to its compact nature.
325:
759:
No doubt the
Commissioner of Patents ought not to refuse an application for a patent unless it is clearly without substantial foundation. . . .
1241:
1211:
592:, with any valid amendments made to it, is judged at the patent's claim date. The disclosure must be fair, honest, open and sufficient. If a
136:
42:
1353:
1269:
506:
785:
In
Canadian patent applications, a distinction is drawn between specifications and drawings, and the petition itself through s. 53 of the
320:
89:
1358:
310:
1420:
183:
163:
1274:
119:
710:
59:
1448:
403:
1481:
769:
comprising senior patent office examiners. If the applicant is unsuccessful there, he or she can appeal directly to the
480:
176:
154:
1295:
1290:
1234:
1453:
593:
589:
367:
346:
295:
499:
408:
315:
653:". As Professor Vaver explains, trying to estimate the outcome of claim construction is next to impossible:
1413:
1403:
1363:
1336:
1331:
774:
682:
1408:
1395:
1373:
1343:
1300:
1264:
770:
584:
For a machine, the inventor must indicate the principle of the invention and the best mode of applying it.
429:
766:
1385:
1315:
1305:
1227:
554:(a) correctly and fully describe the invention and its operation or use as contemplated by the inventor;
373:
264:
233:
228:
622:
which recognized that the Act's disclosure provision is badly drafted and cannot be read literally.
238:
1380:
1368:
1348:
542:
492:
475:
398:
388:
383:
378:
279:
112:
27:
19:
650:
646:
interpretation possible of what their invention is, and progressively claim narrower variations.
574:
In the disclosure, the applicant explains what his or her invention is and how to put it to use.
523:
must include the “specification”. The patent specification has three parts: the disclosure, the
520:
351:
259:
254:
1310:
1207:
424:
393:
300:
658:
documentary context, technical considerations, commercial context, and business common sense.
439:
305:
269:
1460:
1440:
578:
For a product, this means that the disclosure must show how to make and use the invention.
465:
444:
434:
527:, and the abstract. The contents of the specification are crucial in patent litigation.
1425:
524:
581:
For a new combination, the elements of and result of the combination must be detailed.
1475:
1250:
694:
470:
223:
809:
related to patentability such as insufficient disclosure or a lack of utility.
449:
630:
The claims are a mandatory part of the specification through s. 27(4) of the
606:
disclosed for other skilled workers to practice it without undue experiment.
330:
743:
The non-discretionary nature of the
Commissioner's duty was confirmed in
274:
218:
663:
must avoid the known and the obvious or risk patent invalidity.
1223:
1219:
540:
The requirements of disclosure are set out in s. 27 of the
1204:
Intellectual
Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks
1006:
1004:
959:
Intellectual
Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks
984:
Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd.
620:
Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd.
613:
provides a best mode duty only for machines (see above
1439:
1394:
1324:
1283:
1257:
1074:
1072:
715:Novelty and non-obviousness in Canadian patent law
894:Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health)
791:
749:
736:
722:
687:
655:
636:
548:
288:Patentability requirements and related concepts
707:Presumption of validity in Canadian patent law
1235:
825:The case Professor Vaver was quoting from is
500:
184:
8:
747:where Pigeon J., after citing s. 40 stated:
1182:
1180:
1178:
1176:
1115:
1113:
1111:
1109:
1107:
1105:
1103:
1101:
1099:
1059:
1057:
1055:
1053:
1051:
1038:
1036:
1034:
1021:
1019:
961:, 2nd ed (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011) at 343.
550:(3) The specification of an invention must
1242:
1228:
1220:
941:
939:
937:
912:
910:
908:
906:
904:
902:
876:
874:
872:
847:
845:
507:
493:
202:
191:
177:
15:
972:Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.
693:If there is more than one invention, the
841:
818:
457:
416:
359:
338:
287:
246:
210:
205:
145:
128:
104:
81:
34:
18:
1011:Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.
1186:
1119:
1090:
1063:
1042:
1025:
945:
928:
916:
880:
851:
137:Canadian Intellectual Property Office
7:
1206:(2nd ed.), Toronto: Irwin Law,
311:Inventive step and non-obviousness
14:
1156:Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
1144:Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
827:Fabio Perini SPA v. LPC Group Plc
745:Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
1081:, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4., at s 36
998:, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4., s 27(4)
120:Manual of Patent Office Practice
26:
531:Components of the specification
711:Utility in Canadian patent law
1:
1170:, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4., s 53
1134:, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4., s 40
805:invalidate an entire patent.
590:sufficiency of the disclosure
360:By region / country
1498:
704:
417:By specific subject matter
1454:Law School Admission Test
1158:1 S.C.R. 902 at para 144.
609:When read literally, the
594:person skilled in the art
368:Patent Cooperation Treaty
347:Sufficiency of disclosure
326:Person skilled in the art
296:Patentable subject matter
129:Governmental organization
67:Sufficiency of disclosure
43:Patentable subject-matter
1354:Immigration and refugees
339:Other legal requirements
316:Industrial applicability
164:Canadian patent case law
866:, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4.
829:EWCA Civ 525 at para 24
775:Supreme Court of Canada
730:result of s. 40 of the
683:divisional applications
536:Disclosure requirements
74:Presumption of validity
1344:Civil and human rights
798:
762:
741:
727:
691:
660:
640:
572:
1381:Labour and employment
1359:Intellectual property
1202:Vaver, David (2011),
986:1 SCR 504 at para 518
765:can be appealed to a
618:Canada's decision in
97:Defences and remedies
781:Truthful application
773:and ultimately the
1482:Canadian patent law
1275:Provincial statutes
767:Patent Appeal Board
247:Procedural concepts
155:Canadian patent law
90:Patent infringement
20:Canadian patent law
931:, pp. 342–343
751:I have underlined
676:Unity of invention
651:claim construction
521:patent application
352:Unity of invention
1469:
1468:
1213:978-1-55221-209-7
1013:, 2 S.C.R. 1024.
519:In Canada, every
517:
516:
201:
200:
1489:
1421:Courts of Appeal
1270:Federal statutes
1244:
1237:
1230:
1221:
1216:
1190:
1184:
1171:
1165:
1159:
1153:
1147:
1141:
1135:
1129:
1123:
1117:
1094:
1088:
1082:
1076:
1067:
1061:
1046:
1040:
1029:
1023:
1014:
1008:
999:
993:
987:
981:
975:
968:
962:
955:
949:
943:
932:
926:
920:
914:
897:
890:
884:
878:
867:
861:
855:
849:
830:
823:
754:
509:
502:
495:
203:
193:
186:
179:
30:
16:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1465:
1461:Call to the bar
1435:
1426:Superior Courts
1390:
1320:
1279:
1253:
1248:
1214:
1201:
1198:
1193:
1185:
1174:
1166:
1162:
1154:
1150:
1142:
1138:
1130:
1126:
1118:
1097:
1089:
1085:
1077:
1070:
1062:
1049:
1041:
1032:
1024:
1017:
1009:
1002:
994:
990:
982:
978:
969:
965:
956:
952:
944:
935:
927:
923:
915:
900:
891:
887:
879:
870:
862:
858:
850:
843:
839:
834:
833:
824:
820:
815:
783:
752:
717:
703:
678:
669:
628:
603:
538:
533:
513:
466:Patent analysis
430:Business method
197:
55:Non-obviousness
12:
11:
5:
1495:
1493:
1485:
1484:
1474:
1473:
1467:
1466:
1464:
1463:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1445:
1443:
1437:
1436:
1434:
1433:
1428:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1406:
1400:
1398:
1392:
1391:
1389:
1388:
1383:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1371:
1366:
1356:
1351:
1346:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1328:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1319:
1318:
1313:
1308:
1303:
1298:
1296:Administrative
1293:
1291:Constitutional
1287:
1285:
1281:
1280:
1278:
1277:
1272:
1267:
1261:
1259:
1255:
1254:
1249:
1247:
1246:
1239:
1232:
1224:
1218:
1217:
1212:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1191:
1172:
1160:
1148:
1136:
1124:
1095:
1083:
1068:
1047:
1030:
1015:
1000:
988:
976:
963:
950:
933:
921:
898:
885:
868:
856:
840:
838:
835:
832:
831:
817:
816:
814:
811:
789:which states:
782:
779:
761:
760:
734:which states:
702:
699:
677:
674:
668:
665:
634:which states:
627:
624:
602:
599:
586:
585:
582:
579:
571:
570:
566:
565:
561:
560:
556:
555:
537:
534:
532:
529:
515:
514:
512:
511:
504:
497:
489:
486:
485:
484:
483:
478:
473:
468:
460:
459:
455:
454:
453:
452:
447:
442:
437:
432:
427:
419:
418:
414:
413:
412:
411:
406:
401:
396:
391:
386:
381:
376:
371:
362:
361:
357:
356:
355:
354:
349:
341:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
328:
323:
318:
313:
308:
303:
298:
290:
289:
285:
284:
283:
282:
277:
272:
267:
262:
257:
249:
248:
244:
243:
242:
241:
236:
231:
226:
221:
213:
212:
208:
207:
199:
198:
196:
195:
188:
181:
173:
170:
169:
168:
167:
159:
158:
148:
147:
143:
142:
141:
140:
131:
130:
126:
125:
124:
123:
116:
115:
107:
106:
102:
101:
100:
99:
93:
92:
84:
83:
79:
78:
77:
76:
70:
69:
63:
62:
57:
52:
46:
45:
37:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1494:
1483:
1480:
1479:
1477:
1462:
1459:
1455:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1447:
1446:
1444:
1442:
1438:
1432:
1429:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1419:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:Federal Court
1407:
1405:
1404:Supreme Court
1402:
1401:
1399:
1397:
1393:
1387:
1384:
1382:
1379:
1375:
1372:
1370:
1367:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1357:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1347:
1345:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1330:
1329:
1327:
1323:
1317:
1314:
1312:
1309:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1294:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1286:
1282:
1276:
1273:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1245:
1240:
1238:
1233:
1231:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1215:
1209:
1205:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1189:, p. 281
1188:
1183:
1181:
1179:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1125:
1122:, p. 278
1121:
1116:
1114:
1112:
1110:
1108:
1106:
1104:
1102:
1100:
1096:
1093:, p. 276
1092:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1075:
1073:
1069:
1066:, p. 275
1065:
1060:
1058:
1056:
1054:
1052:
1048:
1045:, p. 346
1044:
1039:
1037:
1035:
1031:
1028:, p. 345
1027:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1005:
1001:
997:
992:
989:
985:
980:
977:
973:
967:
964:
960:
957:David Vaver,
954:
951:
948:, p. 343
947:
942:
940:
938:
934:
930:
925:
922:
919:, p. 342
918:
913:
911:
909:
907:
905:
903:
899:
895:
889:
886:
883:, p. 341
882:
877:
875:
873:
869:
865:
860:
857:
854:, p. 274
853:
848:
846:
842:
836:
828:
822:
819:
812:
810:
806:
803:
797:
794:
790:
788:
780:
778:
776:
772:
771:Federal Court
768:
758:
757:
756:
748:
746:
740:
735:
733:
726:
721:
716:
712:
708:
700:
698:
696:
695:patent office
690:
686:
684:
675:
673:
666:
664:
659:
654:
652:
647:
643:
639:
635:
633:
625:
623:
621:
616:
612:
607:
600:
598:
595:
591:
583:
580:
577:
576:
575:
568:
567:
563:
562:
558:
557:
553:
552:
551:
547:
545:
544:
535:
530:
528:
526:
522:
510:
505:
503:
498:
496:
491:
490:
488:
487:
482:
479:
477:
474:
472:
469:
467:
464:
463:
462:
461:
456:
451:
448:
446:
443:
441:
438:
436:
433:
431:
428:
426:
423:
422:
421:
420:
415:
410:
409:United States
407:
405:
402:
400:
397:
395:
392:
390:
387:
385:
382:
380:
377:
375:
372:
369:
366:
365:
364:
363:
358:
353:
350:
348:
345:
344:
343:
342:
337:
332:
329:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
312:
309:
307:
304:
302:
299:
297:
294:
293:
292:
291:
286:
281:
278:
276:
273:
271:
268:
266:
263:
261:
258:
256:
253:
252:
251:
250:
245:
240:
237:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
222:
220:
217:
216:
215:
214:
209:
204:
194:
189:
187:
182:
180:
175:
174:
172:
171:
166:
165:
161:
160:
157:
156:
152:
151:
150:
149:
144:
138:
135:
134:
133:
132:
127:
121:
118:
117:
114:
111:
110:
109:
108:
103:
98:
95:
94:
91:
88:
87:
86:
85:
80:
75:
72:
71:
68:
65:
64:
61:
58:
56:
53:
51:
48:
47:
44:
41:
40:
39:
38:
35:Patentability
33:
29:
25:
24:
21:
17:
1265:Constitution
1251:Canadian law
1203:
1196:Bibliography
1167:
1163:
1155:
1151:
1146:1 S.C.R. 902
1143:
1139:
1131:
1127:
1086:
1078:
1010:
995:
991:
983:
979:
971:
966:
958:
953:
924:
896:2008 FCA 108
893:
888:
863:
859:
826:
821:
807:
801:
799:
795:
792:
786:
784:
763:
750:
744:
742:
737:
731:
728:
723:
718:
692:
688:
679:
670:
667:The abstract
661:
656:
648:
644:
641:
637:
631:
629:
619:
614:
610:
608:
604:
587:
573:
549:
541:
539:
518:
471:Pirate Party
301:Inventorship
280:Infringement
224:Patent claim
162:
153:
82:Infringement
66:
1325:Other areas
974:2009 FC 676
701:Examination
404:Netherlands
260:Prosecution
255:Application
105:Legal texts
1449:Law school
1431:Provincial
1337:Indigenous
1332:Aboriginal
1284:Core areas
1187:Vaver 2011
1168:Patent Act
1132:Patent Act
1120:Vaver 2011
1091:Vaver 2011
1079:Patent Act
1064:Vaver 2011
1043:Vaver 2011
1026:Vaver 2011
996:Patent Act
946:Vaver 2011
929:Vaver 2011
917:Vaver 2011
881:Vaver 2011
864:Patent Act
852:Vaver 2011
837:References
800:Thus, the
787:Patent Act
732:Patent Act
705:See also:
632:Patent Act
626:The claims
615:Patent Act
543:Patent Act
425:Biological
265:Opposition
206:Patent law
146:Categories
113:Patent Act
1441:Education
1374:Trademark
1364:Copyright
601:Best mode
440:Insurance
374:Australia
331:Prior art
275:Licensing
270:Valuation
239:Criticism
234:Economics
211:Overviews
1476:Category
1386:Maritime
1316:Property
1306:Contract
1301:Criminal
739:therefor
481:Glossary
476:Category
458:See also
445:Software
435:Chemical
1258:Sources
394:Germany
321:Utility
306:Novelty
229:History
122:(MOPOP)
60:Utility
50:Novelty
1414:Appeal
1396:Courts
1369:Patent
1349:Family
1210:
753:by law
725:grant.
713:, and
525:claims
389:Europe
379:Canada
219:Patent
139:(CIPO)
813:Notes
399:Japan
384:China
370:(PCT)
1311:Tort
1208:ISBN
970:See
892:See
588:The
802:Act
611:Act
450:Tax
1478::
1175:^
1098:^
1071:^
1050:^
1033:^
1018:^
1003:^
936:^
901:^
871:^
844:^
777:.
709:,
546::
1243:e
1236:t
1229:v
681:"
508:e
501:t
494:v
192:e
185:t
178:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
