Canada: What The Supreme Court Of Canada Was Not Told About Patent Utility

Last Updated: May 18 2017
Article by Jennifer L. Wilkie and Jay Zakaib

Most Read Contributor in Canada, October 2018

On November 8, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") heard an appeal by Astrazeneca regarding the validity of a patent covering its NEXIUM product.1 At trial and before the Federal Court of Appeal, Apotex successfully argued that Astrazeneca's patent was invalid for lack of utility on the basis of a failure to demonstrate or soundly predict the promised utility as of the patent's filing date. At issue before the SCC was the legitimacy of the so-called "Promise Doctrine", as well as the proper approach to take in evaluating whether a claim meets the Patent Act's utility requirement.2

The legitimacy of the Promise Doctrine was raised years earlier when the SCC granted leave on this issue in Plavix3, only to have Apotex discontinue its appeal on the day before the hearing. In seeking leave to appeal and in its written materials, Astrazeneca focused on both the legitimacy of the Promise Doctrine and the approach to be taken in considering utility. However, in oral argument, counsel for Astrazeneca's argument focused little on the Promise Doctrine's legitimacy and heavily on the approach to be used in considering utility.  Below is commentary on the Promise Doctrine, including its historical basis and its importation into Canadian law without statutory enactment.

What is the Promise Doctrine?

In Canada, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal have routinely stated that "a scintilla of utility" will suffice to meet the section 2 statutory requirement of "useful".4  Until the jurisprudence changed (around 2005 in the Federal Court5), a claimed invention only needed any utility to be useful and meet the statutory requirement in the Patent Act. However, starting in the mid-2000s the Courts started reading in promised utilities into claims based on statements in the patent disclosure.

For example, in the Accupril case, the Court found that the compound claims 3 and 5 attached to a promise to treat hypertension.  These claims did not specify the purpose for which the compounds were to be used.6 For a claim to a compound, the requisite utility had previously been a mere scintilla, but in this case, it was now required that the compound provide treatment of a medical condition because of its activity as described in the disclosure. 

Thus a jurisprudential wedge on utility in the Federal Court arose.

The myriad of decisions that followed led to confusion and uncertainty, some cases overlaying one or more statements from patent disclosures into the claims, other cases declining to do so.7 The Federal Court of Appeal attempted to rationalize the law by confirming that a scintilla of utility meets the statutory requirement for utility and finding that any further requirement of utility is only to be found where the Court has found an explicit promise of a specific result in the patent specification.8 Then the Court has required that the patentee show that the promise(s) was/were demonstrated or soundly predicted as of the patent filing date.9  Unfortunately, some Courts have confused some statements of advantages or preferences of a claimed invention with explicit promises.

In the Esomeprazole case, multiple statements or promises were found from the patent specification, and a failure to demonstrate or soundly predict one or more of those promises sufficed to invalidate the patent claims at issue.10 

In considering sound prediction, some decisions from lower courts have imposed the requirement that the support for the sound prediction must also be disclosed in the patent11 where it is not part of the skilled person's common general knowledge, even though the SCC has stated that utility is considered separate and apart from the section 27(3) disclosure requirements of the Patent Act in Viagra.12  

Thus, the Promise Doctrine created – without any statutory enactment – three additional requirements for "usefulness" in Canadian law as follows:

  1. The tying of statements made in a patent to a "promised utility";
  2. The requirement that the promised utility be demonstrated or soundly predicted as of the filing date of the Canadian patent application (rather than simply that the claimed invention be useful in fact); and
  3. The requirement that the factual basis and line of reasoning for a sound prediction be disclosed in the patent.13

Traditionally, utility was a straight-forward requirement for patentees to understand and meet. The "utility" requirement was meant to keep "useless" inventions out of the public domain; an oft-cited example is a perpetual motion machine. So, the utility requirement was satisfied so long as a claim was not devoid of utility, that is, so long as a claim had at least a "scintilla" of utility, or was capable of industrial application.14

The Promise Doctrine has fundamentally changed this standard. It is no longer enough that a claim be useful (even though this is the statutory requirement of the Patent Act). Rather, the three-pronged approach of the Promise Doctrine has been used to invalidate dozens of patents since around the mid-2000s. Under the traditional approach to utility, less than five patents were found invalid for lack of utility from 1980 to 2004. From 2005 onwards, more than 25 patents have been found invalid for lack of utility. Of these post-2004 invalidations, almost every patent has claimed subject matter that was in fact useful. Even if one adopts the arguably higher European standard of "capable of industrial application", these claimed inventions, as embodied in commercial products covered by the invalidated patent claims, were in fact useful.

Where did the Promise Doctrine Originate?

Courts routinely cite Consolboard v MacMillan Bloedel for the proposition that a patent will be invalid if it makes a promise that is not demonstrated or soundly predicted by the filing date.

There is a helpful discussion in Halsbury's Laws of England, (3rd ed.), vol. 29, at p. 59, on the meaning of "not useful" in patent law. It means "that the invention will not work, either in the sense that it will not operate at all or, more broadly, that it will not do what the specification promises that it will do".15

However, the quote from Consolboard must be understood in context. In particular, this passage was based on the U.K. Patent Act and its provision on "false suggestion or representation":

  1. that has since been repealed;
  2. that was removed from Canada's Patent Act in 1869 in favour of what is now section 53(1);
  3. that required any promise to be "material and coterminous" with the claims; and
  4. that was not tied to the filing date of the patent – the determination of whether the inventors made a false promise was considered as of the hearing date.

The U.K. Law was Repealed in 1977

The Consolboard passage relies on old U.K. law that was repealed in 1977. Prior to 1977, the U.K's Patent Act contemplated patents being found invalid in situations where "the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation."16 It is significant to note that in this old U.K. provision that there was no temporal requirement of establishing a false promise by the patent filing date. The relevant date was the date of hearing. One must also remember that the representation or suggestion by which the patent was obtained had to be a false one. Otherwise, the cause of action to impeach the patent failed.

In 1977, the U.K. provision was repealed and thus there is no doctrine of false promise in the U.K. today.

For there to be a promise doctrine applicable to Canadian patents, there must be a statutory basis in Canada's Patent Act. The SCC has oft-stated that a patentee can rely on the Patent Act and that a patent will thus only be granted if the patent requirements are met or invalidated when the requirements of the Act are not met. A pithy statement to this effect was made in Hoechst where Judson J. stated that "there is no inherent common law right to a patent. An inventor gets his patent according to the terms of the Patent Act, no more and no less."17 Thus, the tying of the level of utility to promises made in a patent would be permissible if supported by the utility requirement in the Patent Act.

Canada's Patent Act Dropped False Promise in 1869 in Favour of Section 53(1)

The predecessor to Canada's Patent Act once contained a provision relating to false promise that was similar to the false promise provision that was removed from the U.K. Patent Act in 1977. In particular, the Patent Act of the Province of Canada, 1849, provided for the impeachment of a patent that was "fraudulently or surreptitiously obtained, issued improvidently, or upon false suggestion...it shall and may be lawful for any person desirous to impeach such Letters Patent for any such cause as aforesaid". [emphasis added]18

However, Parliament repealed this provision in 1869 in favour of what is now section 53(1) of the Patent Act. Section 53(1) states:

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.

Thus, Parliament removed "false suggestion" as a ground for patent impeachment in favour of section 53(1), which requires an element of wilfulness19 and which is evaluated as of the date of issue,20 not the filing date. Contemporaneous commentary by Biggar noted the significance of this change:

In the result, it can only be said that, having regard to the terms of both the sections referred to [the versions of subsections 53(1) and (2) in force at the time], it would appear that the careless or inexpert draftmanship of a specification probably has less severe consequences in Canada than in either Great Britain or in the United States. The decisions of courts in these jurisdictions which turn on the making of unduly broad claims, upon the incompleteness of the specification, or upon inaccurate statements in it, are to be applied in Canada with the utmost caution when the incompleteness or the inclusion of the unduly broad claims or the inaccurate statements does not appear to have been due to an intention to mislead.21

Thus, there is there no statutory basis in Canada's Patent Act for an invalidation on the basis of false promise. Such a basis did exist, but Parliament explicitly repealed it in favour of a different approach.   

Material and Coterminous

As a further error in evaluating the level of utility under the guise of promise, some Canadian courts have expanded Consolboard/Halsbury's to statements in the disclosure that go beyond the claimed subject-matter. The U.K. law on which Consolboard relied would only find a promise to be useable as a basis to invalidate a patent when the promise was "material and coterminous" with the patent's claims, and was actually false, not unproven as of the filing date.22

Some Canadian decisions have tied any "promises" made in a patent's disclosure to certain claims with which such statements correspond.23 However, other decisions have taken statements from the disclosure and found them to be overarching promises that apply to all claims.24 Thus, Canadian courts have not only imported a foreign doctrine which has no basis in Canada's (or the foreign country's current) Patent Act, but also, in certain cases have expanded the doctrine and applied it to all claims of a patent, even where the "promise" made is not material and coterminous with those claims, and is not necessarily "false".

Consolboard Dealt with Utility in Fact – it was Not Tied to the Filing Date

Even if it were proper to evaluate utility in Canada based on "promises" made in a patent's specification (despite there being no statutory basis), the Promise Doctrine is further offside Consolboard because it requires an evaluation of utility as of the filing date of the Canadian patent application. The law in Canada, the U.S., and the U.K. was harmonious in allowing post-filing data to be used to establish utility, and this was the framework under which the Court in Consolboard was operating. It is also the understanding in the Halsbury's text used as support for the Consolboard statement. In particular, Halsbury's states:

Meaning of not useful. Not useful in patent law means that the invention will not work, either in the sense that it will not operate at all or, more broadly, that it will not do what the specification promises that it will do. If the invention will give the result promised at all, the objection fails. [emphasis added]25

These statements are all in the present tense. Halsbury's does not call for an investigation as to whether the utility was established as of the filing date; it is solely oriented to whether there was utility in fact. However, Canadian courts have created another non-statutory requirement that utility be evaluated as of the filing date for promises made, predicted, and demonstrated in order to meet the meaning of the statutory term "useful".

Conclusion

The only issue that the SCC need consider in Esomeprazole is whether the Promise Doctrine is legitimate under Canada's Patent Act.  Patent law in Canada is wholly statutory, and there is no statutory basis in Canada for the Promise Doctrine. Therefore, the SCC should have heard that Promise doctrine has no legitimacy under the Canadian Patent Act as currently enacted.  

Indeed, Parliament chose to repeal the statutory basis for the doctrine in 1869. The reliance on the short Consolboard passage by Canadian courts is misplaced.  An investigation into the basis of this passage (namely, the 1949 U.K. Patent Act and the Halsbury's text cited in Consolboard) shows that there is no basis for the doctrine in Canadian (or current U.K.) law.   If the doctrine has any place in Canadian patent law, evaluation of a "promise" is to be done as of the hearing date.

If the Promise Doctrine is not legitimate and has no statutory basis under the Patent Act, there is no need to further elaborate on the requirements for utility. The SCC has done so numerous times in the past in holding that a patent will lack utility where it is devoid of utility in fact, evaluated as of the hearing date. A return to this standard would increase certainty for litigants and ensure that undisputedly useful inventions do not continue to be invalidated for lack of utility in Canada.

Footnotes

1 Astrazeneca Canada v Apotex Inc., SCC no. 36654  (Esomeprazole)

2 Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4 at s. 2: "invention means any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter..." [emphasis added]

3 Sanofi v Apotex, SCC no. 35562

4 For example, see: Sanofi-Aventis v Apotex, 2013 FCA 186 at para 49 [Plavix FCA]; Bell Helicopter v Eurocopter, 2013 FCA 219 at para 132. Promises are now found in the majority of cases where utility is at issue.

5 Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. 2005 FC 1205 (Accupril)

6 Accupril at paras 69-71

7 For example see the Latanoprost cases, where divergent promises were found on the same patent: Pfizer v Pharmascience, 2011 FCA 102, aff'g 2009 FC 1294 (Latanoprost I) and Pfizer v Apotex, 2011 FCA 236 rev'g 2010 FC 447 (Latanoprost II)

8 For example, see: Plavix FCA at para 54; Nova Chemicals v Dow Chemical, 2016 FCA 216 at para 16

9 Apotex v Pfizer, 2014 FCA 250 at para 64 [Celebrex], citing Apotex v Wellcome Foundation, 2002 SCC 77 [AZT]

10 Five promises were found in the Esomeprazole trial (2014 FC 638). Two of these were not met; this was fatal to the patent. See the trial decision at paras 214-218 for a summary.

11 For example: Eli Lilly v Apotex, 2008 FC 142, aff'd 2009 FCA 97

12 Teva v Pfizer, 2012 SCC 60 at paras 38-40

13 The interplay between disclosure requirements under s. 27(3) and the utility doctrine of sound prediction are not addressed in this paper.

14 Monsanto Company v Commissioner of Patents, [1979] 2 SCR 1108 at 1117, cited with approval by the SCC in AZT at para 62 and Apotex v Sanofi-Synthelabo, 2008 SCC 61 at para 105 [Plavix SCC]

15 Consolboard v MacMillan Bloedel, [1981] 1 SCR 504 at 525

16 Patents Act, 1949, 12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6, c. 87, s 32(1)(g) & (j)

17 Commissioner of Patents v Farbwerke Hoechst, [1964] SCR 49 at 57. See also: Plavix SCC at para 12

18 An Act to consolidate and amend the Laws of Patents for Inventions in this Province, S Prov C 1849, (12 Vict) c 24, s 17

19 AZT at para 109

20 Weatherford v Corlac, 2011 FCA 228 at para 119

21 OM Biggar, Canadian Patent Law and Practice (Toronto: Burroughs & Company, 1927) at pp 51-52

22 American Cyanamid v Ethicon Limited, [1979] RPC 215 (Ch D) at 261. While decided in 1979, American Cyanamid was decided based on the pre-1977 U.K. Patent Act.

23 For example: Celebrex; Novartis v Apotex, 2013 FC 141; Teva v Novartis, 2016 FCA 230

24 For example, in Eli Lilly v Apotex, 2011 FC 1288, Lilly's patent to olanzapine was invalidated based on a promise of "marked superiority and a better side effects profile than prior known antipsychotic agents, and has a highly advantageous activity level" which was held to apply to all claims of the patent at issue. The patent at issue included claims to, inter alia, the compound olanzapine itself. See pars 94 and 120 of that decision.

25 Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd ed) (London: Butterworth, 1960), vol 29 at p 59

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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