Canada: SCOTUS Changes The Rules For Patent Claim Construction On Appeal

Can the Supreme Court of Canada Be Far Behind?
Last Updated: February 6 2015
Article by L.E. Trent Horne and Dominique T. Hussey

For almost 100 years, Canadian Courts have consistently held that the interpretation of a patent claim is a question of law. In almost every context, questions of law are reviewed on a de novo basis, without deference. As the Canadian courts of appeal routinely describe claim construction purely as a "question of law,"1 in practice it is unclear whether the factual findings of the trial judge are afforded deference in claim construction (for example, in the assessment of the common general knowledge that informs the meaning of claim terms). In light of the United States Supreme Court opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.2 and recent developments in Canadian law, this principle is ripe for reconsideration in Canada.

The SCOTUS Teva decision: Subsidiary Fact-Finding Attracts a Deferential Review

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has long reviewed a district court judge's interpretation of a patent claim without deference—de novo—as a pure question of law. But far from being divorced from fact, claim construction is a practice with "evidentiary underpinnings." Those underpinnings inform the meaning of claim terms in the context of the patented invention and to those skilled in the associated technology. Claim construction establishes the "metes and bounds" of a claim, which in turn defines the limits of a patentee's exclusive rights. Consequently, claim construction can profoundly affect the ultimate issue of every patent case: whether the defendant is liable for infringement or whether the asserted claim is even valid. De novo review of a Court's claim construction yields a higher reversal rate than review under a more deferential standard. It may therefore have enormous economic impact; reversal dictates the difference between competition in the market versus none, and liability for damages versus none. In this regard, the circumstances of Teva v. Sandoz are emblematic.

The dispute in Teva pertained to the meaning of the phrase, "molecular weight," which defined an ingredient used in the claimed method of manufacturing a drug. While a commonplace phrase to the lay scientist, the Court consulted expert evidence to resolve the issue as to whether or not "molecular weight" admitted of three different meanings to those skilled in the relevant science. If so, the claim was fatally indefinite—failing to establish the metes and bounds—and therefore invalid.

The district court resolved the dispute in favour of a single meaning for "molecular weight," holding the claim valid and infringed. The appellate court reversed: the patent was held to be invalid and not infringed. As was typical, the Federal Circuit reviewed de novo the district court's claim construction, including the underlying facts.

The Supreme Court vacated the holding, announcing that the factual findings underlying the claim construction should not be reviewed de novo. In matters of claim construction, there is no "exception from the ordinary rule governing appellate review of factual matters."3 Appellate courts are therefore now required to review all factual findings subsidiary to claim construction under the "clearly erroneous" standard. The Supreme Court explained that where the background science is consulted, or the history of how the term is understood, these are "evidentiary underpinnings", and this "subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal".4

Deference, however, will not always be due. As the majority stated, "when the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specification, along with the patent's prosecution history), the judge's determination will amount solely to a determination of law, and the Court of Appeals will review that construction de novo."5 Further, "the ultimate question of construction will remain a legal question", to be reviewed de novo.6

That the factual finding "may be nearly dispositive" does not render the subsidiary question a legal one.7 However, this near-dispositive character, coupled with deferential review, renders the new standard of review an important change and one that, serendipitously, is ripe for consideration in Canada.

Canada's Adherence to Claim Construction as a Question of Law: All Root, No Ground?

In Canada, many patent cases cite the Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool Corp v Camco Inc8 for the principle that claim construction is a question of law. This has been accepted and applied in the Federal Court, with little detailed scrutiny. This principle finds its roots in Supreme Court case law and the Interpretation Act, but with little express consideration of the appropriate standard of review.

Whirlpool was a landmark case, in part because it rejected the long-standing doctrine of substantive infringement—i.e., a claim could be infringed if there was literal infringement, or if the activity of the defendant appropriated the "pith and substance" of the invention. Substantive infringement gave the trial judge tremendous discretion, and made the infringement analysis unpredictable. In rejecting substantive infringement, courts were directed to construe the claims in a "purposive" way and apply that same construction to determine patent infringement and validity.

Whirlpool did not include a detailed discussion of appellate standards of review. Specifically, the Court did not address whether an appellate court can or must review the factual findings of the trial judge on a de novo basis. For example, should the trial judge's findings as to the common general knowledge of the skilled person to whom the patent is addressed (which must inform if not define all claim construction) be afforded deference? The Court's direction is: "[h]owever, claims construction is a matter of law for the judge, and he was quite entitled to adopt a construction of the claims that differed from that put forward by the parties." While no authority was cited here, the statement is consistent with the Supreme Court's 1934 decision in Western Electric Co v Baldwin International Radio of Canada.9 There, the Supreme Court was clear that claim construction is a question of law and not for an expert or jury to decide.

In this respect, Western Electric accords with modern practice. In contrast with the United States, almost all Canadian patent cases are commenced in the Federal Court of Canada, where juries are prohibited.10 Further, Western is consistent with the modern principle that experts should not opine on the ultimate issue,11 as this is the role of the Court. However, other aspects of Western Electric have not withstood the test of time. Specifically, the Court in Western Electric stated that after the claims have been construed, the next step is to determine whether the invention has been "in substance" taken by the defendant—the approach to determining infringement that the Supreme Court expressly rejected in Whirlpool. If substantive infringement is no longer good law, then other issues in Western Electric, such as standard of review, are surely equally amenable to reconsideration.

The principle that claim construction is a question of law is also rooted in statute. The term "letters patent" is included within the definition of "regulation" in Canada's Interpretation Act. As the name suggests, the Interpretation Act provides guidance as to how government "enactments" are to be read (e.g., when they come into force and computation of time periods). The Interpretation Act also requires that an enactment will be given such fair, large and liberal interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects (a direction that is very consistent with what the Supreme Court said in Western Electric). However, while the Interpretation Act provides valuable guidance as to how a patent should be read, it is silent on standards of appellate review.

Should Canadian Practice be Considered De Novo?

Recent decisions addressing the role of appellate courts suggest that describing and treating claim construction as a question of law (where no deference is shown to the factual findings of the trial judge) is increasingly out of step with Canadian jurisprudence.

Errors of law are reviewed de novo, without deference under the "correctness" standard, because "the principle of universality requires appellate courts to ensure that the same legal rules are applied in similar situations," and to allow the appellate Court to fulfill its "law-settling" role."12 To overturn factual findings, the error must be palpable and overriding. This more deferential standard of review is colourfully described as follows: "[w]hen arguing palpable and overriding error, it is not enough to pull at leaves and branches and leave the tree standing. The entire tree must fall."13

Questions of mixed fact and law generally attract the standard of palpable and overriding error, unless the trial judge made an extricable error (of law) in the characterization of the legal standard or its application.14 The Supreme Court described questions of mixed fact and law as those that involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts. This precisely describes the exercise of claim construction, but this is not how the exercise is described in the case law.

Claim construction necessarily requires two steps: the trial judge (1) reviews the relevant law on claim construction and then (2) applies that law to the "facts" of the case, i.e., what the patent states and claims is the invention, scope of exclusivity in light of the understanding of the skilled person. Arguably, because patents are written documents, their interpretation, like statutory interpretation, is within the province and expertise of the Court. But statutes, or under the Interpretation Act, "regulations", are not necessarily apt comparators or designations for patents.

Turning back to the United States Teva decision, the Supreme Court contrasted the fact-finding exercise that underlies statutory interpretation—a pure question of law—with the claim construction exercise. While statutes address themselves to a general public and concern themselves with facts related to a "reasonably broad set of social circumstances", patents typically "rest upon consideration by few private parties, experts, and administrators of more narrowly circumscribed facts related to specific technical matters".15 By contrast, the Court has "repeatedly compared patent claim construction to the construction of other written instruments such as deeds and contracts".16  

A patent is more contractual than statutory in nature. In the ordinary course, the scope construction of the patent affects a handful of potential competitors, and not the public at large. Patent interpretation will almost always involve resolving competing expert evidence to establish the circumstances informing the interpretation. These circumstances may not cry out for the general, law-settling role of the appellate Court. Rather, under Canadian law, the circumstances favour a more deferential standard in the context of claim construction.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently abandoned the historical approach of reviewing, as a question of law, the rights and obligations under a written contract. Whereas, with limited exceptions, parol (or extrinsic) evidence was inadmissible for purposes of interpreting a contract, now the circumstances surrounding the contracts—facts—may always be considered, and attract a more deferential standard of review.17

Similarly, in administrative law, there has been a clear shift to affording deference to administrative decision-makers, even on questions of law. Beginning with Dunsmuir18 and continuing with subsequent decisions,19 the scope of questions of law where de novo review is warranted is becoming increasingly limited. Reasonableness has become the dominant standard of review—provided the result comes within a range of acceptable outcomes, it will not be disturbed on appeal. While the Supreme Court has been clear that standards of review for decisions of administrative tribunals must not be conflated with standards of appellate review,20 the approach is instructive as to how appellate courts view their role.

The Facts Speak for Themselves

Unlike appellate review of administrative and contract law, the Supreme Court has not provided clear direction as to how appellate courts should review a trial judge's factual findings when considering claim construction. In practice, the Federal Court of Appeal has described claim construction as a question of law, however it has been unclear whether the underlying facts have been swept up into a de novo review, or whether a demonstration of palpable and overriding error has been effectively required. The underlying facts are seldom discussed in terms of standard of review. Claim construction is often deemed "correct" or "proper" or "incorrect." However, deference to the underlying facts is either not express or not apparent, which seems increasingly out of step with the modern approach to appellate review in Canada. We anticipate that, over time, appellate review of claim construction will be clarified by the Supreme Court, and the practice will converge with the recent result in the United States.


1 With passing reference to the principle that "[a] judge's assessment of the expert evidence will not be reversed on appeal absent palpable and overriding error". Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée v. Eurocopter, société par actions simplifiée 2013 FCA 219 at 74-75

2 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. 574 US____ (2015) (Case No. 13-854)

3 Id. at p. 6

4 Id. at p. 12

5 Id. at pp. 11-12

6 Id. at p. 13

7 Id. at p. 13

8 [2000] 2 SCR 1067

9 [1934] SCR 570

10 Federal Courts Act (RSC, 1985, c. F-7), s. 49

11 R. v Mohan, [1994] 2 SCR 9

12 Housen v Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 SCR 235, 2002 SCC 33

13 Canada v South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165

14 Housen v Nikolaisen at ¶36

15 Teva at p. 11

16 Id. at p. 11

17 Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53

18 Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, [2008] 1 SCR 190

19 Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teacher's Association, 2011 SCC 61; McLean v British Columbia (Securities Commission) 2013 SCC 67

20 Agraira v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36

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.

L.E. Trent Horne
In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.