Brief Comment on the Baker Petrolite Corp. v. Canwell Enviroindustries Ltd Decision Rendered by the Federal Court of Canada on April 29, 2002 Regarding Anticipation Resulting From a Prior Use or Sale

2002-01-01

1
BRIEFCOMMENTONTHEBAKERPETROLITECORP.v.CANWELLENVIRO-
INDUSTRIESLTDDECISIONRENDEREDBYTHEFEDERALCOURTOFCANADAON
APRIL29,2002REGARDINGANTICIPATIONRESULTINGFROMAPRIORUSEOR
SALE

NathalieJodoinandMoniqueSullivan*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com

InCanada,asinamajorityofcountriesaroundtheworld,apatentcanbe
issuedforaninventionaslongasthesaidinventionisnovel,inventiveand
useful.However,aninventionwillnotbeconsiderednovelifithaspreviously
beenmadeavailabletothepublicbeforeacertaindate.Thisraisesthe
followingquestion:Doesthesimplesaleoruseinpublicofaninvention
automaticallydestroyitsnovelty?Ifnot,whatarethecriteriaorprinciplesto
determinewhetherornottherehasbeenadisclosure.TheFederalCourtof
Canadarenderedanimportant,long-awaiteddecisionrelatingtopatentson
April29,2002,inthecaseofBakerPetroliteCorp.c.CanwellEnviro-Industries
Ltd.[2002]CarswellNat1209,2002FCA158,17C.P.R.(4
th)478,211D.L.R.(4th)
696.Thisdecisionprovidesuswithguidingprinciplestoaddressthe
anticipationissuepursuanttoparagraph28.2(1)a)ofthePatentAct.The
FederalCourthas,inrenderingthisdecision,filledthelegalgapthatwas
createdwiththecomingintoforceofthenewPatentActin1989.
ThislegalgapresultedfromthefactthatthePatentActinforcepriorto1989
specificallyprovidedunderparagraph27(1)c)thatanticipationcouldbe
establishedbythepublicuseorsaleoftheinvention.Theonlyevidence
requiredundertheoldActtoproveanticipationwasthattherehadbeena
publicuseorsaleoftheinventionmorethantwoyearsbeforethefilingofa
correspondingpatentapplication,andthis,eveniftheinventionwasnot
therebydisclosed.ThenewPatentActenactedin1989didnothowever
reproduceparagraph27(1)c)asitwasfoundintheoldAct.Hence,thenew
Actmodifiedthestateofthelawandraisedthestandardofproofonthe

©CIPS,2002.*OfLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trademarkagents.PublishedintheFall2002issue(Vol.6,No.4)issueofourNewsletter.
Publication068.049E.

2
personalleginganticipationbasedonprioruseorsale.Thisdecisionis
thereforeofparticularimportancefortheworldofpatents.
ThedecisionaddressedthevalidityofCanadianpatent2,005,946belonging
toPetroliteanddirectedatamethodforremovinghydrogensulfide,a
poisonoussubstance,fromnaturalgas.Thismethod,sometimesreferredtoas
the“sweetening”ofsourgas,madeuseofachemicalproductcalled
“triazine”formedbythereactionofmonoethanolamine(MEA)and
formaldehyde.
Theapplicanthadsoldthischemicalproductbeforeacertainrelevantdate.
Themainissueonappealwasthefollowing:Whetherthesalehaddestroyed
thenoveltyoftheinventionandasaresultinvalidatedthepatentinquestion.
TheCourtdeducedthefollowingeightprinciplesinspiredfromUnited
KingdomandEuropeanjurisprudencedealingwiththequestionof
anticipationinthecontextofdisclosurebyprioruseorsale.Todestroy
novelty,thepriorsaleorusemust:
1.makeavailabletothepublictheinformationwhichdescribesthe
invention,
2.amounttoan“enablingdisclosure”,
3.inthecaseofachemicalproduct,allowfortheanalysisand
discoveryofitscompositionorinternalstructure,
4.allowfortheanalysisbyapersonskilledintheart,withoutthe
exerciseofinventiveskill,inaccordancewithknownanalytical
techniquesavailableattherelevanttime(thisprinciplemustbe
appliedconsistentlywiththeprinciplesestablishedinBeloitv.Valmet
(1986)8C.P.R.(3d)289),and
5.besoldtosomeonewhoisamemberofthepublicandfreetouseit
assheorhepleases;but
6.itisnotnecessarytodemonstratethattheanalysiswasactually
conductedorthatitcouldhavebeenconducted,
7.thecomplexityofwork,theamountoftimeandworkinvolvedin
conductingtheanalysisisnotdeterminative,and
8.itisnotnecessarythattheproductthatisthesubjectoftheanalysis
becapableofexactreproduction.
TheCourtspecifiedhoweverthattheseprinciplesarenotintendedtobe
exhaustiveanddonotaltertheprinciplesassetoutinBeloitv.Valmet,orFree
WorldTrustv.ElectroSantéInc.[2000]2R.C.S.1024(S.C.C.).
Applyingtheaboveprinciplestothefactsofthecaseathand,theCourt
foundthepatenttobeinvalidbasedonthefindingthattherespondent

3
Canwellhadshownthattheinventionhadbeenmadeavailabletothe
publicpursuanttosection28.2ofthenewAct.TheCourtexplainedthatthe
burdenofproofrestswiththepersonclaiminganticipationbydisclosure
throughpriorsaleandislimitedtoshowingthattheanalysisoftheproductby
reverseengineeringispossible.TheCourtalsospecifiedthatitwasnot
necessarytoshowthataparticularpurchaserdidorwouldhaveconducted
ananalysisoftheproduct.Thequestionisthus,whetherapersonskilledinthe
artcorrectlyusingdataandmethodologyavailableattherelevanttime,
wouldbeledtotheclaimedinventionwithouttheuseorapplicationof
inventiveskill.
Thus,thisdecisionprovidesgoodanswerstomanylegitimatequestions
regardingnotonlytheinterpretationtobegiventosubsection28.2(1)ofthe
newActbutalso,thetestforanticipationinthecaseofaprioruseorsale.The
eightprinciplesreportedabovewillcertainlybeveryusefulintheresolutionof
presentandfuturedisputesconcerningdisclosuresensuingfrompublicusesor
sales.
Itisclearfromthisdecisionthattherewillbelossofnoveltyifitispossibleto
analyseaproductthatwassoldtothepublicusingreverseengineeringand
that,evenifthatsaidpublicconsistsofonlyoneperson.Wetherefore
recommendgenerallytoourclientstofileapatentapplicationbefore
disclosinganinvention,eventhoughthedisclosureismadetoonlyone
memberofthepublic.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorrequireanyother
informationregardingthistopic,pleasecommunicatewithNathalieJodoinor
anyotherpatentagentofourfirm.

4
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentand
trademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthe
valorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsand
utilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;
copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;
computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competition
andanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,
distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.
Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD

5