Canada: Using Electronic Records In Patent Proceedings

Originally published in Managing Intellectual Property's World IP Contacts Handbook, 14th edition, 2007.

In Canada, a patent granting exclusive property to a claimed invention can be obtained only if the applicant complies with all the requirements of the Patent Act (RSC, 1985, c P-4) and associated Patent Rules (SOR/96-423). As in most jurisdictions, Canadian patent law is founded on the fundamental requirements of novelty, utility and non-obviousness embodied in a proper public disclosure of the claimed invention.

Priority regarding patent rights in Canada is determined on the basis of which applicant first files an application. The Act provides that between two (or more) competing applications for the same invention, the one with the earliest claim date is entitled to the patent. Where disputes arise as to priority or patent validity, the facts relating to the invention process may become relevant during the course of proceedings before the Canadian Patent Office or the Canadian courts.

Documents generated by inventors and other scientists assisting the inventors are often introduced into evidence to provide the invention story, including who was involved in the invention and what was actually invented. The reliability and accuracy of any documentary evidence in support of the inventive process may be critical to proceedings in the Canadian Patent Office and the Canadian courts. Whether it is in the context of prosecution or litigation, the question is: "How do innovators in Canada properly evidence their inventive process?" This question becomes critical as society moves toward electronic storage of data. Canadian law has evolved to permit electronic documents in legal proceedings.

Evidence of Invention

In laboratory settings, the inventive process has traditionally been documented through a formalized procedure of laboratory notebooks, hardcopy records management and invention disclosure statements. Lab notebooks typically record the date and names of the parties involved and chronicle any experimental procedures, results, observations and conclusions. In many cases, it is these experimental procedures and results that populate the specification of a patent application or are entered into evidence in a court proceeding.

Discovery of Electronic Documents

In the context of document discovery, electronic documents (lab notebooks or otherwise) fall under the definition of "document" in both the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106) and the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure (RRO 1990, Regulation 194). Under the Federal Courts Rules, "document" is defined as:

222 (1)... "document" includes an audio recording, video recording, film, photograph, chart, graph, map, plan, survey, book of account, computer diskette and any other device on which information is recorded or stored [emphasis added].

Under the Ontario Rules, the definition is similar:

30.01 (1)(a)... "document" includes a sound recording, film, videotape, photograph, chart, graph, map, plan, survey, book of account, and data and information in electronic form [emphasis added].

The general definitions in the Ontario Rules further define "document" as including "data and information in electronic form" and "electronic" as including any document that is "created, recorded, transmitted or stored in digital form or in other intangible form by electronic, magnetic or optical means or by any other means that has capabilities for creation, recording, transmission or storage similar to those means".

What these definitions reveal is that not only does a traditional hardcopy record qualify as a document under the rules but so too does a softcopy electronic record. Any data or information stored in electronic form meets the definition of "document" and is thus subject to the documentary discovery provisions found in either the Federal Court Rules or the Ontario Rules.

However, satisfying the definition of document for the purposes of discovery does not alone guarantee that lab notebooks or other records (either in paper form or electronic form) will be admitted into evidence during a court proceeding. Under the laws of evidence in Canada, the court will consider the relevance and necessity of the proposed documentary evidence. The admissibility of relevant evidence is not a question of judicial discretion in Canada: if certain evidence is relevant, it is admissible. However, the court does have discretion regarding the weight that should be given to certain admissible evidence. In the context of documentary evidence, the court will consider the authenticity, integrity and reliability of the document when making a determination of the weight that it should be given.

Questions of authenticity, integrity and reliability are particularly pronounced when parties seek to tender electronic documents as evidence. Electronic documents by their nature are accessible, reproducible and easily manipulated. Businesses today accumulate vast amounts of electronic data and store multiple versions of numerous documents. Networks provide access to an extensive number of users and provide varying degrees of security, or none at all. Concern about the authenticity, integrity and reliability of electronic documents, compared with a signed and dated lab notebook in the handwriting of a named inventor, can be appreciated.

Electronic Evidence: Proposed Uniform Statutes

Concern over these issues influenced the drafting of what is known as the Canadian Uniform Electronic Evidence Act [UEEA] in 1998 (which is not law) and the subsequent enactment of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (RSC 2000, c 5, [PIPEDA]). UEEA was drafted in 1998 by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada (ULCC), which assembles government lawyers, private lawyers, policy analysts and law reformers to consider areas in which provincial and territorial laws would benefit from harmonization. The ULCC adopts "uniform statutes" such as UEEA, and, where appropriate, recommends their enactment by the federal, provincial and territorial governments of Canada.

UEEA deals with the admissibility of electronic documents as evidence where the authenticity of the documents and the integrity of the electronic storage system can be demonstrated. Certain provisions in UEEA permit the introduction of evidence of any standard, procedure, usage or practice regarding the way the documents are recorded and stored. Evidence showing the integrity of the storage system may help determine whether the electronic documents tendered for admission should be received as authentic and reliable.

Uniform statutes formulated by the ULCC are not enforceable as Canadian law, but rather suggest to the federal, provincial and territorial governments the benefits of uniform legislation in certain realms. Both the federal government of Canada and the provincial government of Ontario have since enacted provisions similar to those recommended in the UEEA.

For example, the federal government enacted PIPEDA in 2000 to establish rules to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in a manner that recognizes individuals’ right of privacy regarding their personal information. Part III of PIPEDA included the UEEA electronic evidence provisions as proposed amendments to the Canada Evidence Act (RSC 1985, c C- 5[CEA]). In 2003, these amendments were incorporated into CEA.

Law of Evidence Regarding Electronic Documents

CEA applies to proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada and incorporates by reference the laws of evidence of the province in which the proceedings are initiated, except for laws inconsistent with or contrary to federal laws. The amendments regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence are in sections 31.1 to 31.8 of the CEA (with similar provisions found in section 34.1 of the Ontario Evidence Act (RSO 1990, c E.23, s 34.1)). CEA now defines (at 31.8) "electronic document" and "electronic documents system":

"[E]lectronic document" means data that is recorded or stored on any medium in or by a computer system or other similar device and that can be read or perceived by a person or a computer system or other similar device. It includes a display, printout or other output of that data. "[E]lectronic documents system" includes a computer system or other similar device by or in which data is recorded or stored and any procedures related to the recording or storage of electronic documents.

The fundamental premise of the new provisions is that the authenticity and reliability of electronic documents can be established by showing the integrity of the electronic documents system. The burden to do so rests on the party seeking to admit the electronic document:

31.1 Any person seeking to admit an electronic document as evidence has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic document is that which it is purported to be.

To legitimize the acceptance of electronic documents as evidence before the court, CEA had to reconcile such admission with the existing rules of evidence, including (1) hearsay, (2) best evidence, and (3) authentication. If a party wishes to admit printouts or other such "copies" of the original electronic record, it was thought that the rule of best evidence might be offended. The new CEA provisions have therefore resolved this concern by legislating a specific application of the rule to electronic documents:

31.2 (1) The best evidence rule in respect of an electronic document is satisfied

(a) on proof of the integrity of the electronic documents system by or in which the electronic document was recorded or stored; or

(b) if an evidentiary presumption established under section 31.4 applies [i.e., secure electronic signatures].

(2) Despite subsection (1), in the absence of evidence to the contrary, an electronic document in the form of a printout satisfies the best evidence rule if the printout has been manifestly or consistently acted on, relied on or used as a record of the information recorded or stored in the printout.

Under CEA, the best evidence rule does indeed apply to computer data but does so without impeding its admissibility. Where the integrity of the electronic documents system is proven, the best evidence rule regarding an electronic document is satisfied, in whatever form the electronic evidence takes (for example, printout, magnetic hard drive, tape, semiconductor memory, optical storage). As proof of the integrity of the electronic documents system, CEA provides that certain standards can be considered by the court:

31.5 For the purpose of determining under any rule of law whether an electronic document is admissible, evidence may be presented in respect of any standard, procedure, usage or practice concerning the manner in which electronic documents are to be recorded or stored, having regard to the type of business, enterprise or endeavour that used, recorded or stored the electronic document and the nature and purpose of the electronic document.

CEA provides for the admissibility of electronic evidence (where relevant); the strength with which its authenticity, integrity and reliability are demonstrated will affect the weight that the court gives the electronic evidence. The integrity of the procedures and standards incorporated in an in-house electronic documents system will bolster the weight of electronic evidence.

Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence

On December 1 2005, the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) released a standard that outlines how to ensure that records generated from electronic information systems are reliable, authentic and trustworthy. The CGSB Standard on Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence (CAN/CGSB 72.34- 2005 (December 1 2005)) was created over a three-year period to help public and private organizations facilitate the admissibility of electronic documents in legal proceedings. The standard is applicable to both electronic records created by an individual (such as electronic lab notebooks) and those entered as a result of data interchange without intervention by an individual (such as automated test results).

The goal of the standard is for those in compliance to demonstrate formally certain key elements in order to prove an organization’s "usual and ordinary course of business" and the integrity of the electronic documents system. These key elements include:

  • contemporaneous recording of information and data;
  • routine business data and routine data entry;
  • reliance on the information and data by the organization;
  • software reliability;
  • processing verification of data and information in records;
  • security and protection against unauthorized access to data and information;
  • maintaining backup copies; and
  • proper retention and disposition of electronic record.

If an organization can demonstrate to the court that its electronic documents system implements these standards, it is anticipated that any electronic documents recorded or stored in such a system will be deemed admissible on account of the proven integrity of the storage system. If relevant, the court will extend the appropriate weight to the evidence on the basis of demonstrated authenticity, integrity and reliability.

Electronic Documents in the Ordinary Course of Business

It is apparent that this standard was drafted to dovetail with not only the CEA provisions regarding electronic evidence (sections 31.1 to 31.8) but also the provisions dealing with the admissibility of business records. Section 30(1) of CEA deals with the recording of information and data in the "ordinary course of business":

30(1) Where oral evidence in respect of a matter would be admissible in a legal proceeding, a record made in the usual and ordinary course of business that contains information in respect of that matter is admissible in evidence under this section in the legal proceeding on production of the record.


(3) Where it is not possible or reasonably practicable to produce any record described in subsection (1)... a copy of the record accompanied by two documents [i.e., affidavits], one that is made by a person who states why it is not possible or reasonably practicable to produce the record and one that sets out the source from which the copy was made, that attests to the copy’s authenticity and that is made by the person who made the copy, is admissible in evidence under this section in the same manner as if it were the original of the record.

The legislation and the CGSB standard are formulated in this manner to address the hearsay rule. Documents that are prepared in the ordinary course of business alleviate the hearsay concern of reliability and thus may be admissible as business records to prove the truth of their contents. Softcopy computer records produced by user input in the ordinary course of business are covered by section 30(1) of CEA. Alternatively, if the original softcopy recording of the input was for some reason not available, a hardcopy computer printout would be admissible under section 30(3) if the affidavit requirements were met. Additionally, an automatic data collection system in a computer-based recordkeeping system may be classified as original evidence or real evidence, which does not offend the hearsay rule either.

In a laboratory setting, the practical implications of these "ordinary course of business" provisions are clear. If a lab employs a digital notebook procedure in the researcher’s ordinary course of business, the electronic contents of the notebook (in softcopy or printed hardcopy) would be admissible. Likewise, if automated test results are being generated and recorded in the ordinary course of business, these data would also be admissible.

If the lab work, though relevant, was not necessarily done in the ordinary course of business, any experimental notes or results could be alternatively admissible under the electronic evidence provisions of CEA so long as the authenticity of the electronic documents can be demonstrated and the integrity of the electronic documents system proven.

Secure Electronic Signatures

The authenticity of electronic documents can be further bolstered by the use of secure electronic signatures, as defined in PIPEDA (subsection 31(1)):

"[S]ecure electronic signature" means an electronic signature that results from the application of a technology or process prescribed by regulations made under subsection 48(1).

48. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, make regulations prescribing technologies or processes for the purpose of the definition "secure electronic signature" in subsection 31(1).

Section 48(1) of PIPEDA contemplates the issuance of regulations that require the use of specific technologies or processes for secure electronic signatures. Section 31.4 of CEA contemplates evidentiary presumptions regarding the association of secure electronic signatures with individuals, and the integrity of electronic documents signed with secure electronic signatures:

31.4 The Governor in Council may make regulations establishing evidentiary presumptions in relation to electronic documents signed with secure electronic signatures, including regulations respecting

(a) the association of secure electronic signatures with persons; and

(b) the integrity of information contained in electronic documents signed with secure electronic signatures.

Under PIPEDA and CEA, the federal government of Canada enacted the Secure Electronic Signature Regulations (SOR/2005- 30), which came into force on February 1 2005. The E-Signature Regs are fairly technical in their definitions and implementation, incorporating digital signature certificates, hash functions and asymmetric encryption employing public and private keys.

What is important in the context of electronic evidence is that when an electronic document is signed using a secure electronic signature, the data in the document are presumed to have been signed by the person identified by the digital signature certificate, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The use of the regulated signature technology should enable parties and the courts to determine whether the electronic document was changed after it was electronically signed. This type of technology may be particularly important in the context of laboratory work, where signed electronic records are often submitted to document inventive discovery.

A Modern Forum

The relevance and importance of electronic evidence regarding both patent prosecution and patent litigation are clear. It is critical that the inventive process is well-documented, that subsequent patent applications are wellsupported and that relevant electronic evidence is admissible if allegations of invalidity arise in the context of a patent dispute. The federal and provincial governments of Canada have established the legislative framework that will allow innovators to rely on electronic documents produced during the research and development phase. It will now be up to the Canadian Patent Office and the Canadian courts to provide a modern forum for electronic records as documentary evidence of invention.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
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