Good faith in Canada Patent practice : Lundbeck V Ratiopharm raises the bar

GOODFAITHINCANADIANPATENTPRACTICE:LUNDBECKV
RATIOPHARM
RAISESTHEBAR

LOUIS-PIERREGRAVELLEANDDANIELC.SMITH*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

InLundbeckCanadaInc.etal.vratiopharminc.etal.
i,theCanadianFederal
Court–Trialdivision-foundthatmisleadingstatementsmadebyanapplicant
showedalackofgoodfaithwhichinvalidatedthesubsequentpatent.

Background
Paragraph73(1)(a)oftheCanadianPatentAct(“Act”)statesthatapatent
application“shallbedeemedtobeabandonediftheapplicantdoesnot…replyin
goodfaithtoanyrequisitionmadebyanexaminer”.

UntilLundbeck,theonlydecisionwhichseriouslyconsideredthescopeof
paragraph73(1)(a)wasG.D.Searle&Co.v.Novopharm
iiwhereinJusticeHughes
likenedtheprocessofapplyingforapatenttoanexparteproceeding:“onlythe
applicantandthePatentOfficeexaminerareinvolvedindialogue”(at72)andthat
“[i]tisnotharshorunreasonable,ifafterapatentissues,thedisclosureisfoundto
lackgoodfaith,thattheCourtmaydeemstheapplicationandthusthepatentto
havebeenabandoned”(at73).
However,betweenG.D.SearleandLundbeck,theCourts’pronouncements
regardingcandourandgoodfaithhavebeeninconsistentatbest.JusticeShore
seeminglycontradictedJusticeHughesinJanssen-OrthoInc.vApotexInc.
iiiin
remarkingthat“[w]hileadutyofcandourandgoodfaithexistsduringthe
prosecutionofpatentapplicationsintheUnitedStatesPatentOffice,asimilarduty
doesnotexistinCanada”(at201).ThiscontrastwasremarkeduponbyJustice
Hugheshimself,priortoLundbeck,inMycogenPlantScienceInc.vBayeretal.
iv,
wherehecontrastedthestancestakeninG.D.SearleandJanssen-Orthoand

©CIPS,2010.*OfROBIC,LLPamultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentagentsandtrade-markagents.Theauthor
wishestothankSimonPicard,articlingstudentatROBIC,
LLP,forhisvaluableresearchand
contributiontothisarticle.PublishedintheMay2010issueofIntellectualPropertyMagazine.
Publication062.041.

2
concludedthat“[g]iventheuncertaintyofthestateofthelawastothedutyof
candour,Icannotfindthatitisplainandobviousthatapleaoflackofcandour
cannotsucceedifappropriatereliefasaresultcanbeclaimed”(at19).

ProsecutionofCA2,426,492
InresponsetoarequestfromtheCanadianexaminer,Lundbeckidentifiedtwo
referencescitedduringtheapplication’sinternationalphase.Indoingso,Lundbeck
neithercommentedonnorprovidedcopiesofthesereferences.

Later,andinresponsetotheexaminer’srejectionoftheclaimsforbeingdirectedto
amereaggregationoftwoknowntypesofcompounds,Lundbeckstatedthat“there
werenumerousarticlesinthepriorartwhichwarnedagainst[theclaimed
combination]”andbroughtforwardfourreferencestobackupthisassertion.
Lundbeckfurtherstatedthattheclaimedcombination“wouldthushavebeen
counter-intuitiveanddefinitelyimprobable…inviewofthepriorartavailableatthe
timeoffiling”(emphasisadded)andthat“theteachingsofthepriorartasawhole
wouldnothavepromptedtheskilledperson…toelaboratetheinstantcomposition”
(emphasisadded).
UnfortunatelyforLundbeck,oneofthetwopreviouslyidentifiedreferences,“Wenk”,
notonlycontradictedtheseassertionsbutwasinfactfarmorepertinenttothe
claimedsubjectmatterthananyofthefourreferencesdiscussedinLundbeck’s
response.Thisdidnotcometotheexaminer’sattentionandtheapplicationwas
subsequentlyallowed.

FederalCourtdecision
Inherconclusions,JusticeMactavishechoedtheparallelsJusticeHughesdrewto
exparteproceedingsandnotedthatapartyseekingexparterelief“mustdomore
thansimplypresentitsowncaseinthebestpossiblelight,aswouldbethecaseif
theothersidewerepresent.Rather,theapplicantmuststatehisorherowncase
fairlyandmustinformtheCourtofanypointsoffactorlawknowntoitwhichfavour
theotherside”(at331).
InignoringWenk,Lundbeck“didnotfairlyoraccuratelyrepresentthestateofthe
priorart”(at341)andhadfailedtofulfillitsdutyofgoodfaithimposedbyparagraph
73(1)(a)oftheAct.Theapplicationwasthereforeretroactivelyabandonedand
Lundbeck’spatentinvalid.

3
ComparisonwithUSlaw
37CFR1.56oftheU.S.PatentRulessetsoutthat“[e]achindividualassociatedwith
thefilingandprosecutionofapatentapplicationhasadutyofcandorandgoodfaith
indealingwiththeOffice,whichincludesadutytodisclosetotheOfficeall
informationknowntothatindividualtobematerialtopatentability…nopatentwill
begrantedonanapplicationinconnectionwithwhichfraudontheOfficewas
practicedorattemptedorthedutyofdisclosurewasviolatedthroughbadfaithor
intentionalmisconduct”(emphasisadded).

Twodistinctionsarise:first,infindingthepatentinvalidJusticeMactavishdidnot
commentonwhetherLundbeck’stransgressionwaseitherintentionalormaterial.

Althoughnotatissueinthiscase,section53(1)oftheActstatesthat“apatentis
void…ifthespecificationordrawingscontainmoreorlessthanisnecessaryfor
obtainingtheendforwhichtheypurporttobemade,andtheomissionoradditionis
wilfullymadeforthepurposeofmisleading
”(emphasisadded).Crucially,paragraph
73(1)(a)containsnosuchqualification.Moreover,ratiopharminsistedthatitwasnot
allegingLundbeckactedinbadfaith,butrathershowedsimplyalackofgoodfaith.

Indeed,regardingmateriality,JusticeMactavishfoundthatWenkneitheranticipated
norrenderedobviousLundbeck’sclaims.
Murkier,however,istheseconddistinction:thedutyofcandourintheU.S.includes
anongoingdutytodiscloseallknownreferencestotheexaminer.TheCanadian
PatentRulesestablishamechanismwherebyanexaminermayrequestthatan
applicantidentifyallpriorartreferencescitedincorrespondingapplications,butthis
requestisneitherautomaticnorongoing.WhetherornotJusticeMactavish’s
commentsthatanapplicant“mustinformtheCourtofanypointsoffactorlaw
knowntoitwhichfavourtheotherside”extendsnowtoapositive,ongoingdutyof
disclosureremainstobeseen.
Practicalconsiderations
Firstandforemost,Canadianpatentagentsmustbecarefulnottooverstatetheir
casewhencharacterisingthepriorart.Whenpossible,discussionshouldbelimited
tothecited
priorartandbroadstatementsregardingthepriorart“asawhole”
shouldbeavoidedinparticular.
Secondly,aCanadianpatent’sfilewrapperhasgonefrombeinglargelyirrelevantto
validitytonowbeingextremelyrelevant.Anymischaracterisationormisleading
statement,howeverunintentionalorimmaterial,couldseeminglynowbeconsidered
alackofgoodfaithandgroundsforinvalidityundersection73(1)(a)oftheAct.

4

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,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
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)

5

i(2009)FC1102ii(2007)FC81;iii(2008)FC744iv(2009)FC1013