AIPPI files intervention in Supreme Court of Canada case
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

The Industry Patent Quality Charter hosted a conference in which it discussed the importance of granting high-quality patents
Julia Holden explains why, if she weren’t in IP, she would be directing and producing live English-language theatre
The impact of the recently agreed treaty may be modest at first but is likely to become more significant over time
Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
Lawyers debate whether the Supreme Court’s ruling helps maintain confidence in the trademark system
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The group of lawyers, which includes seven IP partners, say they were impressed by ArentFox Schiff's wide-reaching experience
Andy Sherman, general counsel at Dolby Laboratories, says the company will continue to make GE Licensing’s patents available through existing pools
CMS, which represents Nestlé, had been told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later
Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Gift this article