Federal Court Considers Necessity of Evidence of Wilfulness Under Subsection 53(1) of the Patent Act


FEDERALCOURTCONSIDERSNECESSITYOFEVIDENCEOFWILFULNESSUNDER
SUBSECTION53(1)OFTHEPATENTACT

AlexandraSteele*
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
TheFederalCourtofCanadarecentlyruledthatproofofwilfulnessmaynot
berequiredwherethevalidityofapatentischallengedonthebasisof
untruematerialallegationspursuanttosubsection53(1)PatentAct.[Zambon
GroupS.A.v.TevaPharmaceuticalIndustriesLtd.,2005FC1585,HansenJ.,
November23,2005].
THESTATUTE
Thiscaseconcernstheinterpretationofsection53PatentAct(R.S.C.1985,c.
P-4),whichreadsasfollows:
53.(1)Apatentisvoidifanymaterialallegationinthepetitionoftheapplicantin
respectofthepatentisuntrue,orifthespecificationanddrawingscontainmore
orlessthanisnecessaryforobtainingtheendforwhichtheypurporttobemade,
andtheomissionoradditioniswilfullymadeforthepurposeofmisleading.
(2)Whereitappearstoacourtthattheomissionoradditionreferredtoin
subsection(1)wasaninvoluntaryerroranditisprovedthatthepatenteeis
entitledtotheremainderofhispatent,thecourtshallrenderajudgmentin
accordancewiththefacts,andshalldeterminethecosts,andthepatentshall
beheldvalidforthatpartoftheinventiondescribedtowhichthepatenteeisso
foundtobeentitled.
THEFACTS
DefendantTevaPharmaceuticalIndustriesLtd.(“Teva”)istheownerof
CanadianPatentNo.2,410,867(“’867Patent”).TevabroughtanActionby




























































©CIPS,2006
*Lawyer,theauthorisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.PublishedintheJanuary2006issueoftheWIPR.
Publication142.183.


CounterclaimagainstseveralDefendants,includingApotexInc.(“Apotex”),
forinfringementofit‘867Patent.InitsDefencetoCounterclaim,theApotex
alleged,interalia,thatthe‘867Patentwasvoidbecausethepatent
applicationcontained“[…]amaterialallegationthatisuntrue”.More
particularly,ApotexpleadthatTeva’sassertionoftheexistenceofan
inventionandthenamingoftheallegedinventorsintheapplicationwas
misleadingsince,priortothematerialdateinissue,theimpugnedinvention
beendisclosedinthepriorartandhadbeenofferedforsalebyTeva.
TevabroughtamotiontostrikeApotex’sallegationsofinvalidityonthebasis
thattheywereincapableofsuccesssincetheydidnotdisclosetheelement
of“wilfulness”requiredundersubsection53(1)PatentAct.TheProthonotary
dismissedthemotiontostrike,(thusmaintainingtheallegationsofinvalidity
setoutintheDefencetoCounterclaim),onthebasisthattherelevant
sectionofthePatentActdidnotrequireproofofwilfulness.Tevaappealed
thedecision.
THEFEDERALCOURTJUDGMENT
Onappeal,TevaarguedthatthelearnedProthonotaryhadmisappliedthe
principlessetoutinthecaselawandthatApotex’sDefencetoCounterclaim
wasessentiallyoneofanticipation,whichisnottheobjectofsubsection53(1)
PatentAct.ApotexarguedthatthewordingoftheActdoesnotrequire
proofofwilfulnesswhereoneputsforwardanargumentofanuntruematerial
allegation,andfurthermorethefactssetoutinthecaselawcitedbyTeva
andconsideredbytheProthonotary,couldbedistinguishedfromthefactsof
thepresentcase.Inaddition,Apotexpleadthattherewasnothing
preventingitfromusingthesamefactsasthebasisforargumentunder
subsection53(1)PatentActandforanargumentofanticipation.
SincetheissuesdecidedbytheProthonotarywerevitaltotheoutcomeof
thecase,JusticeHansen,seizedoftheappeal,determinedthattheshe
wouldreviewthecaseandexerciseherdiscretiondenovo.Shesetoutthe
questiononappealasfollows:
“[11]Theissueonthisappealiswhetheritis”plainandobvious”thatthe
allegationofinvalidityclaimedintheimpugnedparagraphsisincapableof
success.Inparticular,iswilfulnessanessentialelementundersubsection53(1).”
AnanalysisoftheStatuterevealsthattwogroundsofinvaliditythatcanbe
raisedundersubsection53(1)PatentAct,namelythat:
(a)thereisanuntruematerialallegationinthepatentapplicationor,


(b)thespecificationsanddrawingscontainmoreorlessthanwhatis
necessaryforobtainingtheendforwhichtheypurporttobemade.
Thedefinitionof“materialallegation”canbefoundinthecaselawandis
summarisedbyJusticeHansenasbeingan:
“[13][…]allegationthattheapplicanthasmadetheinventionandthe
allegationoffactsthatbringtheapplicantwithinthestatutoryprescriptions.”
JusticeHansenconsideredthesamedecisionsastheProthonotaryBefore
her,namelytheSupremeCourtofCanadadecisioninApotexInc.v.
WellcomeFoundationLtd.(2002),21C.P.R.(4
th)499(S.C.C.)and671905
AlbertaInc.v.Q’MaxSolutionsInc.(2003),27C.P.R.(4
th)385(F.C.A.).
InApotexInc.v.WellcomeFoundationLtd.,bothinfirstinstanceandon
appeal,theFederalCourtshadfoundthatthefailuretomentionthenames
ofco-inventorsinapatentapplicationdidnotconstituteanuntruematerial
allegationsufficienttoinvalidateapatentundersubsection53(1)PatentAct.
OnappealfromtheFederalCourtofAppeal,theSupremeCourtofCanada
ultimatelymadeafindingthatthepersonsallegedlyomittedfromthepatent
applicationwerenotco-inventors:consequently,theSupremeCourtdidnot
needtoconsiderthe“materialityoftheomission”.However,theSupreme
Courtaddedinobiterthattherewasnoevidencethattheomissiontoname
thepurportedco-inventorswouldhavebeenmadewilfullyforthepurposeof
misleading,asrequiredbytheAct
.
Inthecaseof671905AlbertaInc.v.Q’MaxSolutionsInc.,theFederalCourtof
Appealruledthatthenaminginapatentapplicationofapersonwhois
subsequentlyfoundnotbeaninventorconstitutesanuntruematerial
allegationsufficienttovoidapatentpursuanttosubsection53(1)PatentAct.
TheCourtofAppealfurtherruled,butinobiteronly,thatinsuch
circumstances,apatentcanonlybeinvalidatedifitisshownthatthe
misnomerisdonewilfully,forthepurposeofmisleading
.
Afterreviewoftheabovedecisions,JusticeHansenconcludedthatthecase
lawwasoflittleassistanceinmakingadeterminationinthiscasesincethese
previousdecisionsturnedonfacts,specificallytheissueofinventorship,which
werequitedifferentfromthoseatbar.JusticeHansenfurtherconcludedthat
thereappearedtobeareluctanceoftheCourtstoinvalidateapatent
basedonaninnocenterror,forexampleinnaminganinventorinapatent
application.Consequently,theCourtwasnotconvincedthatApotexwas
required,inthisparticularcase,toallegeandshowwilfulness,andtherefore,
contrarytoTeva’sposition,thattheallegationsofinvaliditycontainedinthe
DefencetoCounterclaimwereincapableofsucceedingattrial.


Teva’sappealwasthereforedismissedwithcosts,withoutdealingwithany
furtherargumentsetforththeparties.
CONCLUSION
ThiscaseconstitutesagoodexampleoftheCourts’reluctancetodecide,at
leastatapreliminarystageoftheproceedings,onanissuethatmayaffect
thepossibilityforapartytomakeevidenceattrial.
Inaddition,sincethisdecisiondoesnotsettlewhetherwilfulnessis,orisnot,a
requirementinallcircumstancesundersubsection53(1)PatentAct,wemay
havetowaitforjudgementonthemeritsofthiscase,sincetheTrialJudgewill
eventuallyberequiredtomakethisdetermination.Intheinterim,
proceedingsseekingtoinvalidateapatentbasedonsubsection53(1)Patent
Actshouldcontainallegationsofwilfulness,(iftheycan,ofcourse,reasonably
besupportedbyfact),inordertoavoidoutrightdismissalofthisgroundof
attackonapatent’svalidity.


ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionet
droitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;
vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectual
property:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouring
rights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsand
plantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchising
andtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicity
andlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
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