AIPPI files intervention in Supreme Court of Canada case
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

AIPPI files intervention in Supreme Court of Canada case

AIPPI yesterday filed an intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada in the dispute between Apotex and Sanofi-Aventis concerning the drug Plavix. The case concerns the utility requirement in Canadian patent law

The amicus-style brief notes that following the Supreme Court’s decisions in AZT (2002) and VIAGRA (2012), “there has been uncertainty with respect to the precise scope of the utility requirement under Canadian law and in particular the extent to which the utility of a patented invention should be disclosed or supported in the patent specification.”

In AZT, the Court stated that utility must either be demonstrated or be a sound prediction based on information and expertise available at the filing date. In VIAGRA, the Court declined to decide the scope of any disclosure requirement associated with “sound prediction”. The brief states that this “remains an open question in the jurisprudence of this Court, and an area of significant uncertainty in Canadian law”.

Noting that the Court has in previous cases said it is desirable not to apply Canada’s IP laws in a judicial vacuum, AIPPI submits that (1) many jurisdictions have a utility or industrial applicability requirement, (2) for many jurisdictions, the utility or industrial applicability must be indicated in the specification if it is not otherwise obvious, (3) for many jurisdictions, there is no requirement that proof or support be provided in the patent specification, and (4) in a number of jurisdictions “it is relatively rare that utility or industrial applicability is a basis to deny the grant of a patent or for invalidating a granted patent”.

The brief draws on research done by AIPPI over the years and reviews the utility/industrial applicability requirement in the United States, Australia, the EPC and European countries, and Japan. It concludes: “[A] determination on the disclosure requirements in Canada that is, to the extent permissible or practical, consistent with the disclosure requirements of other major jurisdictions can only lead to greater certainty and lower costs for patentees who seek patent protection in Canada.”

Other organisations that have filed briefs in this case include BIOTECanada, Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association and FICPI. The case is due to be heard by the Court later this year.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Firms explain how monitoring, referrals and relationships with foreign firms helped them get more work at the TTAB
Luke Toft explains why he moved back to Fox Rothschild after working in-house at Sleep Number for five months
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
In a seminal ruling, the Beijing Internet Court said images generated by Stable Diffusion counted as original works
Boston-based John Lanza is hoping to work more with life sciences colleagues on the ‘exciting’ application of AI to drug discovery
The Delhi High Court has expressed its willingness to set global licensing terms in the Nokia-Oppo dispute, but it must deal with longstanding problems first
Some patent counsel are still encountering errors even though the USPTO has fully transitioned to the new system
A senior USPTO attorney spoke at a Nokia-sponsored event on the EU’s proposed SEP Regulation today, November 29
IP counsel are ‘flooded’ with queries from clients worried about deepfakes, but the law has so far come up short
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career