Canada: Omnibus budget bill changes exceptions to patent infringement

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Canada: Omnibus budget bill changes exceptions to patent infringement

In the omnibus budget bill passed by the Canadian parliament on December 3 2018 were numerous amendments to Canada's IP statutes, including to sections of the Patent Act that provide exceptions to infringement.

Exception for experimental use

The changes to the Patent Act include moving the exception for experimental use under subsection 55.2(6) to its own section, 55.3, and potentially altering its scope. Section 55.3 also allows the government to enact regulations setting out factors that the court may consider, must consider or cannot consider in determining whether an act is committed for experimental purposes. The changes also provide for regulations that set out circumstances under which an act is, or is not, committed for experimental purposes.

The government has yet to announce plans for such regulations. Until then, the nature and scope of the existing exception for experimental use remains unchanged.

Exception for acts committed prior to the claim date

The changes also include replacing Section 56 of the Patent Act, expanding the scope of the infringement defence arising from acts committed prior to the asserted patent's claim date. Previously, a person purchasing, constructing or acquiring the subject matter of a claim before the claim date had the right to use or sell what had been purchased, constructed or acquired without being liable for infringement. A defence to infringement now arises when a person in good faith before the claim date, commits, or makes serious and effective preparations to commit, an act that would otherwise be infringing. This must have been done without obtaining knowledge of the claim's subject matter from the patent applicant.

The exemption to infringement also extends to future third parties. When the act includes a service, users of the service are also covered by the exemption. If committing the act resulted in an article, users or buyers of such an article are also exempted from infringement.

If the act giving rise to the exception was committed, or the preparations to commit the act were made, in the course of a business and this portion of the business is then sold, the exception to infringement is transferred and does not remain with the seller.

These changes introduce uncertainty into determining whether an allegation of infringement is justified, even though the requirement for good faith and the extension to preparatory acts are found in similar provisions in other jurisdictions. It is unclear whether the Canadian courts will look to or follow foreign jurisprudence when they are called to provide guidance regarding the meaning and scope of "serious and effective preparations" to commit an otherwise infringing act and when an act is done in good faith.

chong.jpg
daley.jpg

Jonathan Chong

Brian Daley


Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLPSuite 3800, Royal Bank Plaza, South Tower, 200 Bay Street, PO Box 84Toronto  Ontario  M5J 2Z4CanadaTel: +1 416 216 4000www.nortonrosefulbright.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
Gift this article