Canada: Patents Year In Review 2012

This article summarizes the most noteworthy Canadian patent law decisions of 2012.

1. Viagra: Supreme Court Addresses Sufficiency of Disclosure

In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its landmark decision clarifying the law of sufficient disclosure and serving notice that "gaming the system" will not be tolerated.   

In Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2012 SCC 60 (Viagra), the Supreme Court examined the disclosure requirements under section 27 of the Patent Act. Section 27 requires, among other things, that a "specification of an invention must correctly and fully describe the invention and its operation or use as contemplated by the inventor." Reminiscent of its decisions stretching back from Consolboard to Whirlpool, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a patent's disclosure forms the basis for the bargain, or quid pro quo, of the patent system. That is, the inventor is granted exclusive rights in a new and useful invention for a limited time in exchange for disclosure of the invention so that society can benefit from this knowledge. However, Viagra raises the price of the bargain.

Pfizer's patent at issue included a set of cascading claims covering subject matter broad to specific. While claim 1 encompassed 260 quintillion compounds, the dependent claims that followed contained smaller and smaller groups of compounds. Ultimately, claims 6 and 7 were directed at the use of just one compound each.

In the disclosure of Pfizer's patent, it was noted that "one of the especially preferred compounds" had been shown to be effective in treating erectile dysfunction (ED). While the evidence before the Court was that only sildenafil — the subject of claim 7 — was the effective compound, there was nothing specific in the disclosure that distinguished sildenafil from the other especially preferred compounds, or that confirmed sildenafil was the compound confirmed to be effective in treating ED.

The Supreme Court held that, as a result of the lack of specific disclosure of sildenafil as the compound that was tested and shown to work, Pfizer's patent was "void" for lack of sufficiency under section 27 of the Patent Act (notwithstanding that this proceeding was pursuant to the PM(NOC) Regulations which do not provide for the invalidation of patents). In coming to this conclusion, and in contrast to lower Court decisions in the case, the Supreme Court stated that the invention must be construed on the basis of the whole specification, not on a claim-by-claim basis. Although sildenafil was specifically disclosed in claim 7, so too was another compound in claim 6. The Supreme Court noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the claims and would note that two claims were directed to the use of individual compounds. The Court noted that this may properly suggest the invention was focused accordingly, however, it cited evidence that it would have taken a "minor research project" to determine which of claims 6 and 7 was the only working invention. As such, the person of ordinary skill could not have made the same use of the invention as could the inventor.

In addition to the disclosure issue, the Court addressed the subject of utility. In particular, the Court held that at the time of filing the application for Pfizer's patent, sildenafil could assist in treating ED. This alone satisfied the requirement for utility: there was no further requirement to disclose an invention's utility in the patent application. The Court did not comment further on disclosure issues related to sound prediction of utility, as sound prediction was not at issue in the case.

2. Eurocopter: Punitive Damages and Promised Utility in Mechanical Inventions

The decision of the Federal Court of Canada in Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter, 2012 FC 113 is important from the perspectives of (i) the prospect of an award of punitive damages in a patent infringement action, and (ii) the application of the Court's relatively new promised utility doctrine in the context of a mechanical invention.

A Court will generally award punitive damages only where a defendant's activities have been malicious, oppressive and high-handed, have offended the Court's sense of decency, or have represented a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. Until Eurocopter, it was rare for a patent dispute to attract an award of punitive damages.

Based on evidence related to Bell's development activities, including the finding that Bell's product was a "slavish copy" of the patented technology, and the marketing of Eurocopter's patented technology as Bell's own, the Court held Bell liable for punitive damages. This conclusion was reached notwithstanding that Bell was quick to change its product design to something non-infringing as soon as it became aware of Eurocopter's lawsuit. Indeed, the Court placed emphasis on the fact that Bell had implied knowledge of Eurocopter's patent. That is, notwithstanding that there was no evidence that Bell had any knowledge of Eurocopter's patent, the Court found that there was "willful blindness or intentional and planned misappropriation of the claimed invention" on the part of Bell, and that Bell was a "sophisticated corporate entity" such that it must have known or ought to have known of the patent.

With respect to the "promise of the patent" doctrine, this relatively new concept has typically been applied in pharmaceutical cases. Eurocopter is the first trial decision that applies this doctrine in a mechanical context.

In construing the promise of Eurocopter's patent, the Court found that it was more than merely providing a working product (i.e., landing gear for helicopters). In particular, the Court found a promise to significantly reduce prior art shortcomings. Although there was no evidence that the invention would not work or would not meet the construed promise, the next step for the Court was to consider whether the invention's utility was demonstrated or soundly predicted as of the Canadian filing date. In this regard, the Court found that, as a result of testing, utility could be demonstrated with respect to only one claim. All other claims included embodiments that either were not the subject of demonstrated utility (i.e., pre-filing date testing), or were not soundly predicted. Therefore, those claims were held to be invalid.

Both Eurocopter and Bell have appealed the trial Court's decision.

3. Promised Utility in Pharmaceutical Inventions

Canada's Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal have continued to closely examine a patent's disclosure, as opposed to its claims, for the purpose of construing the "promise of the patent." In this regard, the Court has, in some cases, elevated laudatory statements in a patent disclosure to become promises of utility.

Prior to 2005, patents in Canada were seldom invalidated due to an alleged inadequate patent disclosure. Since then, disclosure-related allegations of invalidity have become commonplace, and have found considerable success. While recognition of a promise in a patent disclosure is not new, it was rarely invoked as a key enabler in an allegation of invalidity. Promised utility was traditionally considered in respect of the claims or very explicit statements of utility in the disclosure. In contrast, the recent incarnation of the "promise of the patent" has become the threshold issue for analyzing utility and validity.

Under the mantra of "promise of the patent," the Courts have ventured beyond explicit promises to dissect the specification and elevate statements of benefit or advantage to become promises of utility. Each "promise" has become a battleground to test the validity of a patent.

In AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2012 FCA 109, the Federal Court of Appeal heard Mylan's appeal from a decision granting a prohibition order with respect to the drug anastrozole (ARIMIDEX). There was no dispute that the claimed compound was useful. However, Mylan argued that the phrase "[i]t is a particular object of the present invention to provide ... fewer undesirable side effects" should be elevated to the status of a promise of utility. The Court of Appeal, in rejecting this argument, held that the phrase was merely aspirational such that its effect depended on its context and the rest of the patent. In this case, there was nothing else in the patent discussing side effects.

In Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2012 FCA 103, the Federal Court of Appeal heard Mylan's appeal from a decision granting a prohibition order with respect to the drug donepezil (ARICEPT). The Court of Appeal held that the patent in suit did not contain any promise related to side effects or toxicity, notwithstanding that it was an object to develop a drug having "a persistent activity and a high safety." In particular, the Court of Appeal made it clear that just because a disclosure may refer to potential benefits or advantages over the prior art, such statements are not necessarily promises. In this regard, use of the specification of a patent in order to construe its promise "is not to serve as an invitation to a zealous lawyer to read a patent specification in such a way as to persuade a Court, one way or the other, as to what the promise is." Rather, the disclosure in the specification is to be understood from the viewpoint of a skilled person in the art or science to which the invention pertains, without resort to technicalities but rather for the purpose of seeking a construction of the claims which is reasonable and fair for both the patentee and the public.

In Fournier Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Health), 2012 FC 741, the Federal Court placed emphasis on the claims when construing any promise of a patent. In particular, the Court held that "promise of a patent" is nothing more than the utility the inventor claims for his invention. Statements found outside the claims should be presumed to be mere statements of advantage unless the inventor clearly and unequivocally states they are part of the promised utility. That is, the disclosure should not be examined microscopically to find additional promises that are outside the scope of the inventor's claimed monopoly.

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2012 FC 1142, the Court rejected Mylan's argument that the promise of the patent, based on the disclosure, was that the compound at issue potently inhibited all major resistant mutant HIV reverse transcriptase strains. In particular, the Court found that Mylan's reference to and reliance on "stray words" found in the disclosure were not appropriate. Because testing data for only certain mutant strains was disclosed, it was not appropriate to construe the claims as promising utility against other, untested strains.

In Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v Novopharm Limited, 2012 FCA 232, which affirmed Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v Novopharm Limited, 2011 FC 1288, the Court declined to uphold the validity of the patent in suit on the basis that, as of the Canadian filing date, the construed promise of the patent (namely, that the compound at issue met the promise that it would provide markedly superior clinical treatment with a better side-effects profile) was neither demonstrated to be useful, nor soundly predicted. The conclusion regarding demonstrated utility was made notwithstanding that Lilly had a number of studies, including studies in dogs, studies with volunteers, and preliminary clinical trial data, as the studies were not enough to demonstrate the promised utility as construed. Notwithstanding that there was a sufficient factual basis for the prediction, the Court concluded that utility was not soundly predicted, as an inference could not be drawn that the promised utility would be met.

4. Damages under Section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations

In 2012, the Federal Court released its first decisions related to quantification of damages under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations. Section 8 provides that an innovator is liable to compensate a generic in damages in the event that the innovator's application for a prohibition order under the PM(NOC) Regulations is unsuccessful.

In Teva Canada Limited v. Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc., 2012 FC 552, and Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc., 2012 FC 553, both of which relate to the drug ramipril, the Court made a number of key findings related to section 8 proceedings.

First, the Court upheld the validity of section 8, and awarded damages based on the finding that an authorized generic and another generic would have entered the market. In another section 8 case (namely, Apotex v. AstraZeneca Canada, 2012 FC 559), the Court also upheld the validity of section 8. In determining damages, the Court stated that each case must be decided on its own facts: the Court rejected the submission of Sanofi-Aventis that a single "but for" conclusion should be drawn in respect of all generics.

With respect to the period of time that on which the quantification of section 8 damages is to be based, the Court found that the period cannot begin before the first day on which the statutory stay under the PM(NOC) Regulations begins.

In addition, the Court held that a generic may not claim "lost business value" beyond the date on which the generic receives its Notice of Compliance. In particular, future lost profits and duplicate ramp-up losses are not recoverable. This finding is consistent with the Court of Appeal's earlier decision in Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co., 2009 FCA 187.

5. Gilead: Eligibility of Patents for the Patent Register 

In Gilead Sciences Canada, Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2012 FCA 254, the Court of Appeal maintained strict product specificity requirements for patentees who intend to list patents on the Patent Register for the purposes of the PM(NOC) Regulations.

Three ingredients were claimed in the patent at issue: two were specific to the drug (COMPLERA), and one was a general class (namely, an antiviral agent that could be a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)). COMPLERA included rilpivirine, an NNRTI, as one of its ingredients.

The Court of Appeal held that the claims of a patent must specifically identify, by name or by chemical structure, the medicinal ingredients within a drug for that patent to be listed on the Patent Register. It is not enough that the medicinal ingredient, although not specifically identified, may still be covered by the claims, and therefore infringed by a generic. Accordingly, because rilpivirine was not specifically claimed, the patent at issue was held to be ineligible for listing on the Patent Register.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Bereskin & Parr LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Bereskin & Parr LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions