Danger of Disclosure Under what Circumstances does the Release of Information Concerning an Invention Make it Unpatentable?

1
DANGEROFDISCLOSUREUNDERWHATCIRCUMSTANCESDOESTHERELEASEOF
INFORMATIONCONCERNINGANINVENTIONMAKEITUNPATENTABLE?

By
BobH.SotiriadisandPhilippeLaporte
*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com
ManycompaniesinCanadaareinvolvedinspecializedmedical
technologies,withproductsenablingthemedicalprofessiontopushthe
boundariesofitsactivitieseverfurther.Yearafteryear,thesecompanies
spendheavilyonR&Dtodevelopeffectivemedicaltechnologiesandto
keepaheadoftheincreasinglyferociouscompetition.Typically,amakerof
specializedmedicaltechnologieswilldevelopproductsbasedonprecise
treatmentgoalsforattackingaparticularhealthproblem.Thisaimcanbe
achievedsuccessfullybydevelopinganeffectivetechnologythatis
medicallyappreciatedandcommerciallyprofitable.Asweallknow,
obtainingapatentvalidfortwentyyearsinCanadaprotectsone’srightsto
anexpensivelydevelopedinventionandoptimizeslong-termprofitability.To
patentaninvention,youhavetoshowitisnewandusefulanddemonstrate
theinventiveactivity.
Thecriterionofnovelty
Article28.2(1)ofthePatentActstipulatesthat“thesubject-matterdefinedby
aclaiminanapplicationforapatentinCanada…mustnothavebeen
disclosed…beforethefilingdate…insuchamannerthatthesubject-
matterbecameavailabletothepublicinCanadaorelsewhere.”Thisrule
couldbereformulatedbystatingthattheessentialelementsofaninvention,
includingtheinventiveaspectoftheinventioninrelationtowhatexisted
before,mustnotbepartofthepublicdomainbeforeapatentclaimismade.



















































*©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2003.
Lawyer,BobH.SotiriadisisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andin
thepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.;LawyerandBiomedicalEngineer,
PhilippeLaporteisamemberofthesamefirms.PublishedintheissueofJannuary2004of
MontrealBusinessMagazine,atp.45.

2
Publicdisclosureimmediatelypreventspatentabilityofaninventioninmost
countriesintheworldbutnotinCanadaortheUnitedStates,whereagrace
periodofoneyearfollowingpublicdisclosureisallowedbeforemakinga
regularpatentapplication.However,beyondtheexpiryofthisgraceperiod,
theinventionisnolongerpatentableinanycountry.
Eachsituationisaconcretecase.Whenacourthastoruleonwhetheran
inventionhasbeendisclosedunderArticle28.2(1)oftheAct,itneedsto
analyzetheleveloftheallegedpubliccommunicationoftheinventionintwo
areas:thecontentandtheaddresseeofthecommunication.
Developmentofspecializedmedicaltechnologydoesnotoccurwithout
outsidecontact,andmanufacturersmustgenerallyjoinwithcollaboratorsin
theclinicalandindustrialsectorsduringproductdevelopment,necessarily
sharingsignificantinformationontheirinventions.Validationofthe
therapeuticpotentialofaproposedtechnologyortheperformanceof
clinicaltrialswithaprototypeinvolvesthirdpartiessuchashospitals,research
centres,universitiesorevenothermanufacturers.Thechallengeliesin
buildingsuccessfulallianceswithoutthreateningthepatentabilityof
inventions.
Content
InCanada,thecourtshavedevelopedcertainteststodetermineifan
inventionisnew.Withrespecttothecontentofacommunicationintheform
ofapublication,ithasbeenestablishedinarulingthataninventionwould
notmeetthecriterionofnoveltyifapersonskilledintheartoftheinvention
found,inasinglepreviousdocument,alltheinformationneededfroma
practicalpointofviewtoproducetheinventionwithouthavingtoapplyany
greatingenuity.Suchadocumentmustgiveinstructionssoclearthat
someoneinthefieldfollowingtheseinstructionswouldbebroughttothe
inventionineverycaseandwithoutpossibilityoferror.
Recently,theappealsdivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadaruledonthe
noveltyofaninventioninthecaseofBakerPetroliteCorp.vsCanwell&
EnviroIndustriesLtd.inthecontextofthesaleandprevioususeofachemical
product.
Inthiscase,patentCA2,005,946(patent‘946)belongingtotherespondent
PetrolitehadbeenallegedlyinfringedbytheplaintiffinappealCanwell&
EnviroIndustriesLtd.andtheCityofMedicineHat.Patent’946covered
variousmethodsforremovinghydrogensulphidefromnaturalgas.The
inventionaimedatreducingoreliminatingsecondaryeffectsfromuseofa

3
productresultingfromthereactionbetweenanalkanolamineandan
aldehyde.Thetriazinecoveredbypatent’946wasknownasaproductofa
chemicalreactionbetweenmonoethanolamine(MEA)andformaldehyde.
InDecember1987andthefollowingmonths,amixtureofMEAand
formaldehydewassoldanddeliveredtoclientsinwesternOklahoma.The
saleswereunconditional,andtheproductwasnotcoveredbyany
confidentialityagreement.TheCourthadtoruleonthematterofwhetherthe
triazinesaleinOklahomameantthattheinventioncoveredbyPetrolite’s
patent’946hadbeendisclosedmorethanoneyearbeforethepatent
applicationwasfiled.
Intermsofprevioususeorsale,thereadingofadocumentprobablydoesnot
apply,buttheCourthastotakeaccountofthecircumstancesoftheuseor
saleinquestiontoknowhowapersonskilledintheartwouldbeledinfallibly
totheclaimedinvention.TheCourtreliedonabundantjurisprudencefrom
theUnitedKingdom,wheresimilarclauseshadtobeinterpretedindefining
eightcriteriaprovidingforadeterminationofwhetherthecontentofa
communicationhaddisclosedessentialelementsofaninvention.According
totheCourt,disclosureofaninventionrequirescontentsuchas:
1)theuseorsalebeingofanaturetomaketheessentialelements
oftheinventionavailabletothepublic;
2)theuseorsalebeingofanaturetoallowforproductionofthe
invention;
3)theuseorsaleofachemicalproductenablingitscompositionor
internalstructuretobediscovered;
4)forachemicalproduct,analysisbeingpossibleforapersonin
thetradewhoiscompetentbutnotendowedwithinventive
geniusthroughtechniquesthatwereknownandavailableinthe
pertinentperiod;
5)inthecaseofasale,itnotbeingnecessaryfortheretobemore
thanonebuyer(thebuyerbeing,however,amemberofthe
publicandfreetousetheproductinachosenmanner,without
restraint);
6)itnotbeingnecessarytoprovethattheproductsoldwas
actuallyanalyzedorcouldhavebeenanalyzed;

4
7)thecomplexityofananalysisorthetimerequirednotbeing
pertinent;
8)exactreproductionoftheproductunderanalysisnotbeinga
validcriterion.
ThePublic
AlthoughtheCourtprovidedetailedsupportofitsrulinginterpretingArticle
28.2(1)a)oftheActintheareaofcontentofcommunication,itwentintoless
depthininterpretingtheexpression“becameavailabletothepublicin
Canadaorelsewhere.”
PetrolitearguedthatthereisamajordifferencebetweentheU.K.legislation
andtheEuropeanConventionontheonehandandtheCanadianActon
theother.Petrolitearguedthatthewords“madeavailabletothepublic”
shouldbedistinguishedfromtheCanadianActthatusesthewords“became
availabletothepublic.”Theargumentstatedthatthewords“made
available”impliedthatthepubliccouldhaveaccesstotheinformation,
whereasthewords“becameavailable”indicatedratherthatthepublic
alreadyhadtheinformationinquestion.Thecourtdidnotacceptthis
argumentandinsteadadoptedabroadinterpretationofthelawbystating
thatitmadelittledifferencewhethertheinformationwasmadeavailableor
becameavailable;itwassimplyavailable.
Initsdefence,Canwell&Enviromaintainedthat,inessence,communication
hadnotbeenmadetothepublicbecausethedeliveriestoOklahomaofthe
productcoveredbypatent’946hadbeenmadetothebuyer’sprivate
propertyandthattheproductconsequentlywasnotavailabletothepublic.
Thisargumentfailed,however,totakeaccountofthefactthatthebuyerwas
amemberofthepublicandthatthetrialjudgehadconcludedthatthesales
wereunconditional.TheCourtthusmaintainedthat,toproveanteriorityinthe
meaningofArticle28.2(1)a),therewasnoneedtoshowthatagivenbuyeror
useranalyzedormayhaveanalyzedtheproduct(whatwasinfacta
chemicalproduct);itsufficedtoprovethatthebuyercouldhavedoneit.
ThesecondargumentmadebyCanwell&Envirowasthatanyperson
analyzingtheproductwouldkeeptheresultssecretandthusunavailableto
thepublic.TheCourtdidnotacceptthisargumentbutinsteadreferredtothe
conditionsofthedealbetweensellerandbuyertodetermineiftheproduct
hadbecameavailabletothepublic.

5
AccordingtotheCourt,theunconditionalsaleofaproducttoabuyermade
theproductavailabletothepublic.Ifthebuyercouldanalyzetheproduct
unrestrained,thatwasenoughtomakeitavailabletothepublic.Theissueof
howabuyerintendedtohandletheanalysisandwhetherthebuyer
intendedtodiscloseitremainedmerelyaccessory,accordingtotheCourt.In
itsconclusion,theCourtheldthatitwastheunconditionalsaleofthe
product,andthustheintentionoftheseller,thatdeterminedwhetherithad
becomeavailabletothepublic.
Inanalyzingthejudgmentinthiscase,itappearsthattheintention,whether
presumedormanifest,ofthecommunicatoroftheinformation,aswellasany
conditionsrestrictingthiscommunication,arethecriteriathatdetermineifit
becameavailabletothepublicinCanadaorelsewhere.
Conclusion
ThisdecisionbytheappealsdivisionoftheFederalCourtshowsthatthe
thresholdinconcludingthatacommunicationhasbecomeavailabletothe
publicisquiteeasytocross.Underthesecircumstances,wecannot
overemphasizetheneedtorestrictthecommunicationofinformationto
collaboratorsinvolvedinR&D.Thesigningofaconfidentialityagreement
remainsaneffectivewayofmanagingthissituationandprovidesfor
eventualproofbeforethecourtsofamanifestintentiontosafeguardthe
confidentialcharacterofacommunicationbeforeapatentapplicationis
filed.
Thecommunicationofessentialelementsoftheinventioneventoone
person,whetherforprovisionofanexplanatorydocument,asaleor
permissiontouseaprototype,canbeconsideredacommunicationthathas
beenmadeavailabletothepublicifitisdoneunconditionallyandtothe
extentthatthispersoncoulddivulgeitwithoutrestriction.Inversely,the
communicationofessentialelementsofaninventionmadetomanypeople
whopreviouslysignedaconfidentialityagreementwouldnotbeconsidered
ashavingbecomeavailabletothepublic.
Youhavetoremainvigilant.InCanada,thepubliccanbejustoneperson!

6

7

ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaquailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.

COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD