AMAZON.COM: Business methods are patentable in Canada

2010-01-01

AMAZON.COM:BUSINESSMETHODSAREPATENTABLEINCANA
DA

JEAN-FRANÇOISJOURNAULTETADAMMIZERA*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKSAGENTS

OnOctober14,2010,theFederalCourtofCanadaissueditsdecisioninthe
Amazon.comcaserelatedtoitsonline“one-click”technology.TheFederalCourt
overturnedapreviousdecisionbytheCommissionerofPatentsconfirmingthe
analysisofthePatentAppealBoardreviewingthefinalrejectionissuedbythe
Examinerincharge,andstatedthatAmazon.com’spatentapplicationconstitutes
statutorysubjectmatterinaccordancewiththePatentAct.

Thiscasewillhaveimportantrepercussions,especiallywithrespecttothe
patentabilityofbusinessmethodsinCanada.TheFederalCourtrejectedthe
Commissioner’spositionthatbusinessmethodsconstitutednon-statutorysubject
matter.TheCommissioner’sinitialopinionwasbasedonherinterpretationof
Canadianandforeigncaselaw.However,theFederalCourtindicatedthatclaims
relatingtobusinessmethodsmustbe”assessedpursuanttothegeneralcategories
ins.2ofthePatentAct”,andthatcreatingabusinessmethodexception,as
proposedbytheCommissioner,constituteda“radicaldeparture”fromthecurrent
regime.AccordingtotheCourt,suchadepartureshouldwarrantparliamentary
intervention.
Inthedecisionunderappeal,theCommissionerhadpresentednewreasoningin
ordertoassessthepatentabilityofbusinessmethods.Thisreasoningincluded,
amongotherthings,aneedtotakeintoaccounttheformandthesubstanceofthe
claims,the”form”oftheclaimreferringtothetextdefiningthescopeoftheinvention
inapatentapplicationandthe”substance”oftheclaimreferringtoanunderstanding
ofthenatureoftheclaimedinventionandadeterminationofwhathasbeenadded
tohumanknowledge.TheCommissioneralsoproposedthattheinventionshould
carryoutachangeinthenatureorstateofamaterialobjectandhavea”technical”
or”technological”characterinordertoreceivepatentprotection.

Inadditiontotherejectionoftheexceptionrelatedtothepatentabilityofbusiness
methods,theFederalCourt’sdecisionalsooverturnstheabove-citedconclusions
madebytheCommissioner.TheCourtstatedthattheinterpretationofthescopeof

©CIPS,2010.*WithROBIC,LLPamultidisciplinaryfirmofLawyers,andPatentandTrade-markAgents.Published
intheFall2010Newsletterofthefirm(Vol.14,No.3).Publication068.124E.

2
claimsinaccordancewithananalysisofthe”formandsubstance”oftheclaims,
whichallowedtheCommissionertoseparatetheclaimsintotheirnoveland
previouslyknownelementsinordertoassesspatentability,wasnotcorrect.This
methodofanalysisdeemedtobeoutdatedbytheCourt,hadbeenrejectedbythe
SupremeCourtininfringementmattersbecauseitresultedinuncertaintiesresulting
fromthesubjectiveanalysisofthesubstanceoftheclaims.AlthoughtheFederal
Courtrecognizedthat,inthepresentcase,theCommissionerattemptedtolimitthe
analysistothepatentabilityofclaims,itwasoftheopinionthatareturntothe“form
andsubstance”analysiswasnotappropriatenomatterwhatthecontextwas.

TheCourtalsomentionedthatthedefinitionof“art”,asstatedbytheCommissioner,
wastoorestrictiveinthatitrequired(1)achangeinthenatureorstateofaphysical
objectand(2)thatitaddressedknowledgethatwasscientificortechnologicalin
nature.TheFederalCourtreiteratedthetestdefinedinthe
ProgressiveGames,Inc.
v.Canada(CommissionerofPatents)[http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/1999/t-439-
98_5918/t-439-98.html](upheldinappeal)confirmeddecisionwhichisformulated
asfollows:
i)itmustnotbeadisembodiedideabuthaveamethodofpracticalapplication;
ii)itmustbeanewandinventivemethodofapplyingskillandknowledge;and
iii)itmusthaveacommerciallyusefulresult.
TheCourtalsoindicatedthatthepracticalapplicationrequirementmust”takeinto
accountawiderdefinitionofphysical,“changeincharacterorcondition”orthe
concreteembodimentofanidea”.
Additionally,theCourtindicatedthatthenewrequirementintroducedbythe
Commissioner,askingthataninventionbe“technical”or“technological”innature,in
ordertoconstitutepatentablesubjectmatter,wasnotsupportedbyCanadiancase
law.TheCommissionerdidnothavethepowertoinstitutesucharequirement.

Afterestablishingtheseprinciples,theCourtproceededwithanewanalysisofthe
pendingclaims.TheCourtconcludedthatthesystemclaimswererelatedtoa
patentablemachine(acomputer)usedtoimplementanonline“oneclick”ordering
process.
Regardingtheprocessclaims,theCourtstatedthattheclaimedprocessused
storedinformationandsoftware“cookies”inordertoallowclientstoorderarticlesin
oneclickandthatthenewknowledgeaddedwasnotsimplyascheme,aplanora
disembodiedidea.IntheCourt’sownwords,theinventionisrelatedtoa“practical
applicationoftheone-clickconcept,putintoactionthroughtheuseofcookies,
computers,theinternetandthecustomer’sownaction”.

ItremainstobeseenwhethertheCommissionerwillappealthisdecisiontothe
FederalCourtofAppeal.Itwillalsobeinterestingtoseewhatwillhappentothe
chaptersoftheManualofPatentOfficePracticethatweremodifiedinviewofthe
Commissioner’sinitialopinion,including
Chapter16

3
[http://www.opic.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-
internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00030.html#oct1_2]onComputer-ImplementedInventions.
Therevisedchapterwhichusedextensivelythe“formandsubstance”approachand
the”technical”or”technological”characteranalysiswaspublishedinearlyOctober
2010.Thisapproach,thathasbeennowoverturnedbytheFederalCourt,has
alreadybeenusedbyCanadianexaminersinofficeactionsissuedinthelastfew
months.
Thedecisionisavailable
here
[http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2010/2010fc1011/2010fc1011.html].

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R

4
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)