Patent Novelty in Canada – Just Don’t Talk About It

2013-04-08

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

PATENTNOVELTYINCANADA–JUSTDON’TTALKABOUTIT
A.
SASHAMANDY*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

Thetestforwhetheraninventionisanticipated(i.e.not“new”)hasbeenmoreorless
settledsincealandmarkdecisionbytheSupremeCourtofCanadain2008
1.
However,manycasessincethenhaveshownthathavingatest,andapplyingitto
thefacts,aretwoverydistinctthings.Whendoessomethingbecome“availabletothe
public”?Doesthetestfornoveltyvarywiththenatureofthedisclosure(i.e.prioruse,
publication,oralcommunication,etc.)?Thesequestionsandmoreweredealtwithby
theFederalCourtofAppealinWenzelDownholeToolsLtd.v.National-Oilwell
CanadaLtd.
2,renderedonDecember20,2012.

Thisdecisionmatterstobothpatentlitigators,whowillbetterappreciatewhich
disclosurescaninvalidateapatent,andhow.Patentagentsandpractitionersmay
takeawaysomebestpracticesfromtheCourt,whichmayallowthemtobetteradvise
theirclientsaboutspecifictypesofdisclosures.

Facts
Althoughthiscasedealswithissuesofnovelty,obviousnessandclaimconstruction,
thisarticlewillfocusexclusivelyonthenoveltyissues.

Atitscore,thiscaseisaboutfamily.BillWenzeloftheappellantcorporationfileda
patentapplicationonOctober1,1990,whichwaseventuallygrantedandissuedas
Canadianpatent2,026,630onMay17,1994.The‘630patentrelatesto“amethodof
increasingtheoff-bottomloadcapacityofabearingassembly”.

Priortofilinghispatentapplication,BillWenzelworkedwithoneofhisfourbrothers,
KenWenzel,intheoilfieldindustry.Thetwopartedwayssometimebefore1990,and
KenWenzelwenttoworkwithoneoftherespondentcompanies.KenWenzel
providedservicesinthedesignanddevelopmentofdrillingtoolsintheoilfield
industry.

©CIPS,2013*Lawyer,A.SashaMandyisamemberofROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentand
trademarkagents.Publishedinthe(April2013),27:3WorldIntellectualPropertyReportissue.
Publication142.274.
1ApotexInc.v.Sanofi‑SynthelaboCanadaInc.,[2008]3S.C.R.265,2008SCC61.22012FCA333.

Inthefallof1989,KenWenzeldesignedabearingassemblyforadownholedrilling
motorknownasthe3103assembly.The3103assemblywasrentedtoacompany
calledEnscoandusedbythemonajobinTexasinearly1990–beforethe‘630
patentwasfiled.
WenzelToolssuedforinfringement,claimingthatthe3103assemblyviolatedthe
‘630patent.Therespondentsallegedthatthe‘630patentwasinvalid,primarily
becausetheinventionclaimedisanticipatedbytheuseof3103assemblyinTexas.

AttrialbeforetheFederalCourt,JusticeSniderfoundtheevidenceshowedthatthe
3103assemblycontainedalltheessentialelementsoftheclaimedinventioninthe
‘630patent.Itthereforewouldanticipatethe‘630patentifitcouldbeshownthat“it
becameavailabletothepublicinCanadaorelsewhere”beforeOctober1,1990.

AlthoughthedetailsabouttheTexasjobarescarce,JusticeSniderfoundthatthe
3103assemblywasavailabletothepublic.Whenthe3103assemblywasrented,
Enscowasnotboundbyanyobligationofconfidentiality,andwasthusfreetouse
whateverinformationcouldbegatheredduringtherental.Therewerethus
opportunitiesforexaminingthe3103assembly,andJusticeSniderconcludedthat
the3103assemblywasthereforeavailabletothepublic.

JusticeSniderarrivedatthisconclusiondespitethefactthatthe3103assembly
couldnotbevisuallyobservedinTexasbecauseitwasencasedinasteeltube,and
despitethefactthatitdoesnotappearthatthe3103assemblywasdismantledprior
tobeingreturnedaftertherental.ForJusticeSnider,itwasenoughthatany
additionalinformationfromKenWenzelwasavailableshouldtheneedhavearisen,
byforexample,the3103assemblybreakingdownandneedingrepairs.Forthe
FederalCourt,thefactthatthe3103assemblywasavailableformorethanavisual
inspection,andcouldhavebeendismantled,wasenoughtomakeitavailabletothe
public.The‘630patentwasthereforeinvalidandunenforceable.

ItwasthusthatthiscasecamebeforetheFederalCourtofAppeal,whichaddressed
thequestionsofnovelty,anddecidedwhethertheclaimedinventionwasanticipated
ornot.
Judgement

Asa“first-to-file”country,Canadaappliesthecriteriaofabsolutenoveltyfor
patentability,withexceptionsforinventor-relateddisclosures.Essentially,thismeans
thattheinventionclaimedcannothavepubliclyexistedbeforetheinventorfiledfor
herpatent.Asweshallsee,therearemanywaysthataninventioncan“publicly
exist.”

3
WenzelToolarguedthatJusticeSnidererredontwofronts:i)shecomparedthe
3103assemblywiththeproverbial“bookonashelfofapubliclibrary”whenthe
evidenceshowedthattheclaimedinventioncouldnot,andwasnot,observedin
Texas,andii)shedisregardedtheevidencethatnopersonofordinaryskillintheart
(POSITA)waspresenttoexaminethe3103assemblyanddiscerntheinvention.

Thenoveltycriterioniscodifiedins.28.2ofthePatentAct.Thissectionstatesthat
thesubjectmatteroftheclaiminquestionmustnothavebeendisclosed“insucha
mannerthatthesubject-matterbecameavailabletothepublicinCanadaor
elsewhere.”
InCanada,asinotherjurisdictions,aninventionisanticipatedif,priortoitsfiling,an
“enablingdisclosure”hasoccurred.TheSupremeCourtofCanadaexplainsthatthe
testforanticipationhastwoparts:first,alltheessentialelementsoftheinvention
mustbedisclosedinasingledisclosure(i.e.publication,use,communication,etc.);
andsecond,assumingsuchadisclosureoccurs,itmustbe“enabling”,meaninga
POSITAmustbeabletoarriveattheinventionsolelyfromthedisclosurewithout
undueburden.
JusticeGauthier,inwritingforthemajorityoftheFederalCourtofAppeal,concluded
thatthequestionofanticipationturnsonthefirstpartofthetest,sufficientdisclosure.
JusticeGauthierdidnotwishtorevisitJusticeSnider’sconclusionthatthedisclosure,
ifitinfacthadoccurred,wasenabled.
TheCourtofAppealfoundthatadequatedisclosuredidoccur:“Myunderstanding,
basedontherelevantjurisprudence,isthatbecomingavailable(inthemeaningofs.
28.2oftheAct)meansthat,thepublic,asdefinedearlier,hadanopportunityto
accesstheinformationthatistheinvention.Aspreviouslymentioned,itdoesnot
requirethatoneactuallytookadvantageofthisopportunity”[Emphasisandbrackets
added].
Inthepresentcase,theCourtconcludedthatitwasenoughthatDrescohad
unrestrictedaccesstothe3103assembly,andthatthemethodstoopenthe3103
assemblyandexamineitwereknownatthetime.Theseopportunitiesmadethe
subjectmatteroftheinventionavailabletothepublic.TheCourtoffersthefollowing
analogy:
[…]Itistruethatopeningthesealedjointstoexaminetheinternalstructuremay
beabitmoretediousthanliftingahoodbutthatdoesnotdetractfromthevalidity
oftheanalogy.Asmentioned,thisisnotrelevant;beingavailabledoesnotrequire
thataccesstotheinformationbeeasy,simplythatitbepossibleusingknown
methodsandinstruments.[Emphasisadded]

TheCourtthereforeupheldthefindingofanticipation,andfoundthepatentinvalid.

4
JusticeMandamin,concurringwiththeconclusionsoftheCourt,nevertheless
dissentedwithregardtoitsanticipationconclusions.Inhisreasons,Justice
MandaminprovidesanexcellentsummaryofthelawofnoveltyinCanada,andhow
differenttypesofdisclosures(i.e.bypriorpublication,priororalcommunication,and
prioruse)cananticipateaninvention.
Priorpublication
Anticipationbypriorpublication“requiresthattheinventionbeinfactdisclosedin
writtendocumentationmadeavailabletothepublic,suchaspatentspecifications,
journalarticles,andtradeliterature,includinginstructionandrepairmanualsand
brochures.”Whenissuchapublication“availabletothepublic”?JusticeMandamin
providesguidance:Sincedisclosuremustbeassessedobjectively,itsufficesthatthepublicationbe
availableforconsultationbythepublic(suchasinapubliclibraryoroverthe
internet),whetherornotthepublicationhasinfactbeenread:[…].However,
privatemanuscriptswhicharenotpubliclyavailableorpaperswhicharekeptin
filingcabinetsorarchivesnotnormallyaccessibletothepublicdonotmeetthe
thresholdsincesuchdocumentsarenotobjectively‘availabletothepublic’.

Priororalcommunication
JusticeMandaminrecognisesthatthereareclearlyevidentiaryissueswithoral
communicationdisclosures.Still,wheretheevidencebearsitout,anticipationby
priororalcommunicationoccurs“where[theinvention]hasbeencommunicated
orallytoamemberofthepublicwhowasfreetouseitasheorshepleased,insofar
asthatinformationallowedaskilledpersontoclearlyunderstandtheinvention.”Such
acommunicationbecomesavailabletothepublicwhereanactualcommunicationor
conveyanceoftheinformationtothepublichasoccurred.Simplykeepingthe
informationtooneselfdoesnotmakeitavailabletothepublic.

Prioruse
Priorusealoneisnotenoughtoanticipateaninvention.Anticipationbyprioruse
requiresevidencethatadisclosureoccurredasaresultoftheusesuchthatthe
inventionbecomingavailabletothepublic.Evenwhenthisoccurs,thedisclosure
muststillpermitenablement.JusticeMandaminexplainsthatifobservationofause
oftheinventionprovidesthePOSITAwithenoughinformationforhertounderstand
howtheinventionworks(i.e.enablement),thentheuseanticipatestheinvention.
Conversely,ifsuchobservationdoesnotallowthePOSITAtounderstandthe
invention,theusemayprovidesufficientdisclosure,butitdoesnotprovide
enablement,anditisthereforenotanticipatory.

Applyingtheseprinciplestothefacts,JusticeMandamindisagreedwiththe
conclusionsreachedbyJusticeSniderwithregardtothepotentialoral
communicationofKenWenzel.ThemerefactsthatKenWenzelwasavailablefor
consultationtoexplainthe3103assemblyanditsdrawingdonotmakethis
information“availabletothepublic”:
Beingavailableforconsultationisnotthesameasdisclosing
information.Foranoralcommunicationofinformationtobeeffective
forthepurposesofanticipation,theinformationmustbeactually
conveyed.SomeonelikeKenWenzelmaywellbesittinginanoffice,
anairplaneoraconventionhallwithalltheinformationinhismind,
however,thatinformationcannotbedeemedtohavebeenavailable
tothepublicunlessitisestablishedbypositiveevidencethatitwas
indeedconveyedtothepublicbysomeformofcommunication.
Simplyput,“beingavailableforconsultation”isnotaformof
communication.Thisisequivalentofsaying“hadtheyaskedmeI
wouldhavetoldthem”.Thismaywellbetrue,butuntilsomeone
effectively“tellsthem”,noinformationisconveyed.

Withregardtoprioruse,JusticeMandaminfoundthattheevidencepointedtoa
differentconclusionthantheonereachedbyJusticeSnider,namely,thatthefacts
demonstratethatthe3103assemblyinTexaswaspracticallyinaccessibletoanyone.

JusticeMandaminthereforedissentedwithhiscolleagues,andfoundthatthe‘630
patentwasnotanticipatedbytheuseofthe3103assemblyinTexas.However,since
heconcurredwithhiscolleaguesontheobviousnessanalysis,heagreedthat,
ultimately,theclaimsofthe‘630patentareobviousandthereforeinvalid.

Theappealwasthusdismissedwithcosts.
Conclusion

AlthoughtheCourtprovidesmuchguidanceonhowanticipatorydisclosurescan
invalidatepatentsinCanada,thelackofunanimitybetweentheJusticesmeansthat
litigatorswillhavemorefoddertoargueanticipation,ordefendagainstit.Although
dissentingonthequestionofanticipation,JusticeMandamin’seloquentsummaryof
thelawofanticipationinCanadamayeventuallybeincorporatedintoafuture
judgement,andthuscannotbeignored.
Forthepatentprosecutor,thiscaseprovidesusefulfactpatternsandlessonsto
bettercounselclientswhohavemadesimilarpriordisclosures.Moreparticularly,
patentagentsshouldobtaineverysingledetailrelatedtoaclient’spriorpublic
disclosure,andnotsimplyrelyonassurancesofconfidentiality.

6
Ultimately,thisCasedoesnotdetractfromthecardinalruleofpatentnovelty-KISS
(KeepItSecretStupid).

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,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,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE

7
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)