Important Decision Regarding Patentability in Canada of Living Life Form
1
IMPORTANTDECISIONREGARDINGPATENTABILITYINCANADAOFLIVINGLIFE
FORM
ZhenWong*
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
Canada’sFederalCourtofAppeal,inalandmarkbutsplitdecisionrendered
onAugust3,2000(PresidentandFellowsofHarvardCollegev.Canada
(CommissionerofPatents),reportedat[2000]F.C.J.1213),ruledthata
transgenicnon-humanmammal,hereinafterreferredtoas”oncomouse”,fell
withinthedefinitionoftheterm”invention”asdefinedinsection2ofthe
CanadianPatentAct(R.S.C.1985,c.P-4).Inthiscase,HarvardCollegehad
beenattemptingformorethanfifteenyearstoobtainapatentinCanadaon
itsoncomouse,whichhadalreadybeenpatentedintheUnitedStatesand
Europe.
Inlowerjurisdictions,theoncomousewasdeemedunpatentable.The
CommissionerofPatentsrestrictivelyinterpretedtheterm”invention”at
Section2oftheCanadianPatentActtoconcludethattheterms
“manufacture”and”compositionofmatter”referrespectivelytosomething
thatismanufacturedunderthefullcontroloftheinventorandtosomething
thatisidenticallyreproducible.Inhisopinion,andintheopinionofthePatent
AppealBoard,thesecriteriawerenotmetinthiscase.
Inordertobedeemedpatentable,aninventionmustmeettheconditionsof
patentabilitywhicharenovelty,utilityandinventiveness(orunobviousness).In
thecaseoftheoncomouse,bothlowerjurisdictionshadruledthatallthree
conditionshadbeenmet:theoncomouseisnovelbecauseitdoesnotexistin
nature,usefulbecauseofitsimplicationincancerresearchandinventive
becauseofthehumaninterventioninvolvedinitsproduction.Theissue
howeverwastodeterminewhethertheoncomousefitintothedefinitionof
“invention”.
CIPS,2000.*OfLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trademarkagents.PublishedintheFall2000issue(Vol.4,No.4)issueofourNewsletter.
Publication068.031E.
2
BeforetheCourtofAppeal,theoncomousewasheldtobepatentable,bya
twotoonemajority.Mr.JusticeRothstein,speakingforthemajority,referred
totheU.S.majoritydecisioninDiamond,CommissionerofPatentsand
Trademarksv.Chakrabarty(1980),206U.S.P.Q.193,toconcludethatthereis
nothinginthePatentActwhichprohibitsthepatentabilityofhigherlifeforms.
RothsteinJ.broadlyinterpretedtheexpressions”manufacture”and
“compositionofmatter”byrelyingonPioneerHi-BredvsCommissionerof
Patents[1989]1S.C.R.1623,whichdidnotprohibittheissuanceofapatent
onalivinglifeform.InthePioneerHi-Bredcasehowever,thepatentwas
refusedsinceitwassimplyacross-breedingoftwoplants.Inanotherdecision
reliedonbythemajority,Abitibi(ReApplicationofAbitibiCo.,(1982),62
C.P.R.(2d)81(PAB)),theCommissionerheldthatmicro-organismscouldbe
thesubjectofpatentapplications.RothsteinJ.furtherstatedthattheterm
“invention”asreadinCanadianpatentlawdidnotexcludeinventionsthat
usethelawsofnature.Therefore,theoncomouseasclaimed,couldbeseen
asfallingwithinthedefinitionoftheterm”invention”.
Inarrivingathisconclusion,RothsteinJ.reviewedthepreviousdecisionsand
foundthattheCommissionerofPatentserredinrejectingtheclaimsdealing
withtheoncomousebyincludingrestrictionsinthelegislativetextwhereno
suchrestrictionsexisted.AsJusticeRothsteinstated:”Thelanguageofpatent
lawisbroadandgeneralandistobegivenwidescopebecauseinventions
are,necessarily,unanticipatedandunforeseeable”.
RothsteinJ.alsofoundthattheFederalCourtTrialjudge,whoheardthe
appealfromthePatentAppealBoard,erredbyapplyingthefollowingcriteria
incorrectly:degreeofcontrol,reproducibility,separationoftheprocessinto
phasesandmakingadistinctionbetweenhigherandlowerlifeforms.
Theessentialpointtoberetainedfromthemajoritydecisionisthatany
inventionthatresultsfromhumanintervention,andthatiscontrollable,no
matterwhatthedegreeis,canbepatentedaslongasitmeetsthe
conventionalcriteriaofpatentability.
Inrenderinghisdissentingopinion,Mr.JusticeIsaacstatedthattheissueinthe
presentcasewasnottodeterminewhethertheoncomouseconstituted
patentablesubjectmatter,butratherwhetheritwasappropriateforthe
CourttoreviewtheCommissioner’sdecisioninviewofrecentadministrative
lawdecisions.Inhisopinion,theCommissioner’sdecisionwasreasonable,
thusitwasnotappropriatetoreviewsame.
WhileitistruethattheCommissionerhastheexpertisetodecidewhetheror
nottograntapatent,whenitcomestodeterminingtheactualscopeofthe
3
PatentActbyinterpretingthedefinitionof”invention”,theCourtsshouldnot
bereluctanttoreviewsuchdecision.
TheFederalgovernmenthasrequestedleavetoappealthisdecisiontothe
SupremeCourtofCanada.However,itisunknownatthispointwhetherthe
requestforappealwillbegrantedbyCanada’shighestCourt.
ItissubmittedthatthisdecisionwillhaveanimportantimpactinCanadian
law,andmayopenthedoorofpatentabilitytoareaswhichweretraditionally
notheldtobepatentable,suchassoftwareperseorsystemswhichdonot
necessarilyproducephysicalresults,suchasmethodsofdoingbusiness.
Itisalsointerestingtonotethatthemajorityaddressedtheimplicationsofthe
decisionforhumans.Thepatentapplicationdealtwithclaimsdirectedtoa
non-humanmammal.Instatingthatthedecisionshouldnothaveanimpact
onhumans,RothsteinJ.wrotethatapatentconstitutesarightofproperty
andthatownershipconceptscannotbeextendedtohumanbeings.The
CanadianCharterofRightsandFreedom,atSection7,statesthateach
personhastherighttofreedom.Consequently,thePatentActdoesnotapply
tohumans.Theissueremainshoweverwithrespecttohumanorganswhich
couldbegeneticallymodifiedtobe”better”.Willthisdecisionallowthe
patentabilityofsuchorgans?Timewilltell.
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