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”.