Purposive Construction in Canadian Patent Infringement Cases Since O’Hara

1996-01-01

PURPOSIVECONSTRUCTIONINCANADIANPATENTINFRINGEMENTCASESSINCE
O’HARA

by
BobH.Sotiriadis
*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

1.0INTRODUCTION
ThispaperanalyzestheeffectofthedecisionoftheFederalCourtofAppeal
inO’HaraManufacturingLtd.v.EliLilly&Co.
1ontheapplicationofthe
doctrineofpurposiveconstructioninCanadianpatentinfringementcases.
ThisisbecauseO’Haraappearsatfirstblushtolimittherightsofthepatentee
incasesofinfringementinsubstance.Itis,however,suggestedthatO’Hara
shouldbeconsideredinlightofthespecificsetoffactsthenbeforethecourt
andshouldnotbeconsideredasanauthoritypointingawayfromthe
generalapproachtakenbytheHouseofLordsinCatnicComponentsLimited
v.Hill&SmithLimited.
2IndeedCanadianCourtssinceO’Harahaveadopted
thedoctrineofpurposiveconstructioninpatentinfringementcasesin
accordancewiththeCatnicdecision.
2THECATNICDOCTRINE:PURPOSIVECONSTRUCTION
WritingfortheCourtinCatnic,LordDiplockcriticizedthetendencytotreat
textualinfringementandinfringementofthe”pithandmarrow”ofan
inventionasiftheywereseparatecausesofaction.Heheldthatapatent

LÉGERROBICRICHARD,1996.
*Lawyer,BobH.SotiriadisisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLÉGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andin
thepatentandtrade-markagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publishedat(1996),11Intellectual
PropertyJournal111-117.Publication177.
11988),20C.P.R.(3d)342,18F.T.R.177(F.C.T.D.);revd.(1989),26C.P.R.(3d)1,23C.I.P.R.166,
99N.R.60,28F.T.R.80nsubnomineEliLilly&Co.v.Novopharm(F.C.A.).
2[1975]1F.S.R.529(Ch.D.-Interlocutory);(1978),[1978]4F.S.R.405,[1982]R.P.C.183-197
(Ch.D.);affd.inpart(1979),[1982]R.P.C.183-218,[1979]F.S.R.619(C.A.);revd.(1980),[1982]
R.P.C.183-237,[1981]F.S.R.60(H.L.);(1983)F.S.R.512(Ch.D.-Ref.).

specificationshouldbegivenapurposiveconstruction,ratherthanaliteral
one.
Muchoftheapplicationofthisdoctrineinvolvesestablishingwhetherthe
strictcompliancewiththeparticulardescriptivewordorphraseappearingin
aclaimwouldhavebeenintendedbythepatenteetobeanessential
requirementoftheinvention,sothatanyvariantonthewordingoftheclaim
wouldfalloutsideofthemonopoly,eventhoughthevariantinquestion
wouldhavenomaterialeffectonthewaytheclaimedinventionworked.
Oneofthemostimportantelementsofthedoctrinethereforerequiresthe
Court,incasesofinfringementinsubstance,toanalyzethevariantinorderto
ascertainwhetheritdoesinfacthaveamaterialeffectuponthewaythe
inventionworks.InCatnic,theHouseofLordsinthisrespectvindicatedthe
positionofLordReid,whohadrenderedtheminoritydecisioninC.VanDer
LelyN.V.v.BanfordsLimited
3(“hayrake”case).
Oneadvantageofthedoctrineofpurposiveconstructionforapatenteeis
thatitholdsthatapatentee’srightsmaynotbefrustratedwhenanelement
ofthespecificationwhichappearstorestrictthepatenteeisfoundthereonly
asan”accidentofform”.
3THEO’HARADECISION
TheprincipleslaiddownbyLordDiplockinCatnicwereappliedbythe
AppealDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadain1989intheO’Haracase
4.
Theplaintifftherebroughtanactionforinfringementofapatentrelatingto
animprovedtabletcoatingapparatus.TheCourtofAppealreversedthe
decisionoftheTrialDivision,whichhadfoundthattheclaimsofthepatent
hadbeeninfringed,onthegroundthatdefendanthadtakenthesubstance
oftheinventionclaimed,eventhoughitsapparatusdidnotincludean
exhaustsystemintheplaceandmannerdefinedintheclaimsofthepatent.
TheCourtofAppealappliedthetestestablishedbyLordDiplockinCatnic
byformulatingthefollowingquestion:
Wouldthespecificationmakeitobvioustoareaderskilledinthe
artthatthedescriptionofthepatentedmachineascomprising
“anexhaustinlet,flexiblybiasedagainsttheexterior”ofthedrum
couldnot
havebeenintendedtoexcludemachinesinwhichthe

3
(1960),[1960]R.P.C.169(Ch.D.-PatentInfringement);affd.inpart(1961),[1961]R.P.C.296
(C.A.);affd.(1962),[1963]R.P.C.61(H.L.);(1964),[1964]R.P.C.54(C.A.-PatentAmendment);
leavetoappealtotheHouseofLordsrefused(1964),[1964]R.P.C.54-83.
4Note1,above.

exhaustwasnot”flexiblybiasedagainst”thedrum,butwas
mountedinafixedpositionascloseaspossibletothedrum?
5

TheCourtofAppealwentontosaythat,sincetheCourtinapatent
infringementaction,isattemptingtodivinetheintentoftheinventor,itwas
nottoconcludethatstrictcompliancewithawordorphraseusedinaclaim
isnotanessentialrequirementoftheinvention,unlessitisobviousthatthe
inventorknewthatafailuretocomplywiththatrequirementwouldhaveno
materialeffectuponthewaytheinventionworked.TheCourtthenanswered
thequestionithadposedinthenegative,sincetheclaimsclearlyrequired
thatthemachinecomprisetheelementmissinginDefendant’sapparatus.
TheCourtdoubtedthattheinventorrealizedatthetimeofhisinventionthat
themissingelementwasnotnecessaryandthatthemachineheinvented
wouldworkjustaswelliftheexhaustwasplacedinafixedposition.Itappears
thattheCourtattemptedtodeterminewhethertheinventordidordidnot
considerthattherequirementinquestionwasessentialtohisinvention.
Furthermore,theCourtplacedemphasisonwhattheinventordidordidnot
know
withrespecttotheeffectofthevariantonhisinvention.Itmayappear
atfirstblushthattheCourtplacedanobligationonplaintiffstodemonstrate
theknowledgeofaninventoratthetimeofinvention,withrespecttoany
potentialvariantthatmaybeintroducedbyapotentialinfringer,butisseems
doubtfulthatthiswastheCourt’sintentinthelightofatleastthreedecisions
renderedaftertheO’Haradecisionandespeciallyinthelightofwording
foundinthespecificationofthepatentinO’Hara.Itseemsthatthe
patentee’suphillbattleinthiscaseresultedsimplyfromtheverywordingofhis
patent.
ThecourtinO’Harasetoutanimportantexcerptofthedisclosure,whichread
asfollows:
“Positionedatalowerquadrantofthedrum’speripheral
aperturedareaisanexhaustinlet…thisinlethasacurved
surface…whichisslightlyspacedfromtheventedperipheral
surface…ofthedrum.Anumberofrollers…arepositionedon
oppositesidesoftheexhaustinlet…andareadaptedforsliding
contactwiththedrum.Forthepurposesofthisapplicationthe
term”sliding”includesotherformsofrelativemotioncontact
includingrollingcontact.Itisessentialthattheexhaustinletbe
positionedadjacenttotheleadinglowerquadrantofthedrum
wherethetabletstumble.”6[Ouremphasis]
ItissuggestedthattheCourt’shandsweretiedbythisclearliteralreference
toanessentialelement,thatis,theexactpositioningoftheexhaustinlet.

5
26C.P.R.(3d)atp.7.
6Ibid.,p.3.

SincetherenderingoftheO’Haradecision,theFederalCourtofAppealhas
notseriouslyendeavouredtoinquireastothepreciseknowledge
ofthe
inventorwithrespecttopotentialvariantsandtheireffectonthewaythe
inventionclaimedactuallyworks.Thiswouldappeartobeanadditional
inquirynotforeseenbytheCatnicdoctrine,andwhichwouldonlybejustified
ontheparticularfactsoftheO’Haracase.
4LATERDECISIONSOFTHEFEDERALCOURTOFAPPEAL
TheFederalCourtofAppealhashadtheopportunitytoreaffirm,oratleast
invoke,itsreasoninginO’Harainthreelatercases.Thesedecisions
demonstratethatO’Harawasdecidedonthestrengthoftheparticularfacts
ofthecase,anddoesnotconsistofastatementofprincipleadditionalto
thatfoundinCatnic,tobeapplieduniversallytoCanadianpatent
infringementcases.
(a)THECOMPUTALOGCASE
OnJuly7,1992,theFederalCourtofAppealgaveitsdecisioninComputalog
Ltd.v.ComtechLoggingLtd.
7ThePlaintiffhadsuedforinfringementofa
patentrelatingtoamethodoftestingcementplugsinboreholesof
abandonedoilorgaswells.TheTrialDivisionfoundinfavourofthe
Defendantonthequestionofinfringement,whileholdingthepatentvalid.
Thepatenttaughtamethodfortestingthequalityofthecementofplugsin
theboreholesofabandonedoilandgaswells.Themethodallowedtheuser
todetectthepresenceofcontaminatingmaterialsinthecementslurrythatis
depositedinaboreholeandwhichservesasaplug.Themethodboth
detectsthepresenceofcontaminatingmaterialsandmeasuresthequalityof
thematerialfound.Themethodwasthereforeusedasawaytodetermine
thepresenceofsomethingandasameansofmeasuringthequalityofthat
thing.
Thedefendantusedamethodofdeterminingthelocationofthepluginthe
boreholeofawell.Itwasnot,however,concernedwiththequalityorpurity
ofthemateriallocated.Theevidenceattrialdemonstratedclearlythatthe
defendantwasnotinterestedinthepurityorqualityofthecementslurryin
theplugandwasonlyinterestedinmerelylocatingthecementplugin
question.Thetrialjudgeheldthattherewasnoinfringementbecausethe

7
(1991),32C.P.R.(3d)289,38F.T.R.269(F.C.T.D.);revdinpart(1992),44C.P.R.(3d)77,142N.R.
216(F.C.A.).

methodusedbytheDefendantwassimplyusedtoestablishthelocationof
theplugintheborehole.
Despitetheobjectssetoutinthepatentinsuit,theFederalCourtofAppeal
didnotagreewiththetrialjudge’sholdingtotheeffectthatthepatent
shouldbeconstruedasonlyamethodfortestingthequalityofthecementof
theplugsinboreholesandnottolocatetheplugs.Thepatentclearlydidnot
statethatthepatentteachesthelocationoftheplug;itdidsoonlyby
implication.TheCourtofAppealheldthatthepatent,takeninthecontextof
thepriorart,placedlocatingthecementplugandmeasuringdensityas
intertwinedoperations.Theywereinherentoperations,onewiththeother,
andthattheywereinfact”inseparable”evenifthepatentdealtmuchmore
explicitlywithdensity,integrity,andpuritythanwithlocation.Itwasapparent
totheCourtthatanymeasurementtechniquethatconcentratesondensity
willinevitablyalsoprovidelocation.
IntheComputalogdecision,theCourtofAppealdidnotrefertoitsdecision
inO’Hara.ItdidhowevercitetheCatniccasewithapprovalwithrespectto
theinterpretationofthepatent,anddidineffectinterpretthepatentin
accordancewiththedoctrineofpurposiveconstructionassetoutbyLord
Diplock.TheCourtdidnotformulatethequestionstobeaskedandthe
answersnecessaryforafindingofinfringementinthemannersetoutin
O’Hara.Itstatedthatthepurposeofmeasuringlocationwaslatentand
implicitinthepatentandgavethateffecttothedisclosureandclaims,
notwithstandingwhatmaybedescribedasa”mereaccidentofform”.
(b)THEIMPERIALOILCASE
OnDecember4,1992,theFederalCourtofAppealagainhadthe
opportunitytoapplyO’HarainImperialOilLtd.v.LubrizolCorp.
8Onceagain,
itmadenoreferenceatalltoO’HarabutinsteadcitedCatnicandBeecham
CanadaLtd.v.Proctor&GambleCo.
9,adecisionoftheCourtinapproving
theapplicationofthedoctrineofpurposiveconstructiontotheinterpretation
ofthepatentinsuit.Infact,notwithstandingO’Hara,theCourtofAppeal
wentsofarastostatethatthenotionofthe”pithandmarrow”ofaninvention
inpatentcaseswasaprinciplethatremains”aliveandwellandapplicablein
thecasebeforethecourt”
10

8
(1990),33C.P.R..(3d)1,39F.T.R.161(F.C.T.D.);affdinpart(1992),45C.P.R.(3d)449,98D.L.R.
(4th)1,150N.R.207(F.C.A.);leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadarefused(1993),
[1993]3S.C.R.vii,50C.P.R.(3d)v,104D.L.R.94th)vii,163N.R.79n(S.C.C.).
9(1981),56C.P.R.(2d)214(F.C.T.D.);affd.(1982),61C.P.R.(2d)1,40N.R.313(F.C.A.);leaveto
appealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadarefused(1982),63C.P.R.(2d)260n,43N.R.263n
(S.C.C.).
10
(1992),45C.P.R.(3d)449(F.C.A.)MahoneyJ.,atp.467.

FurthermorethelengthyreasonsofJusticeCullenJ.,whorenderedthe
decisioninfirstinstance,andwasupheldbytheCourtofAppeal,nowhere
mentionsO’Hara.Instead,hereferredtoCatnicandBeechaminhis
discussionoftheconstructionofapatentandhisadoptionofthepurposive
constructiondoctrine.TheCourtofAppealcouldhaveposedanO’Hara
type-testtothequestionofevaluatingtheimpactofthevariantofthe
inventioninvokedbytheDefendantwithrespecttothesuccinationratioofits
impugnedcompositioninLubrizolthatcase.Instead,theCourt,having
appliedthepurposiveconstructiondoctrinetotheinterpretationofthe
claims,thenreconfirmedthepithandmarrowdoctrine,holdingthatthe
variantwasimmaterialandfindinginfavourofthepatenteeoninfringement.
(c)THEGORSECASE
ItisinterestingtonotethatinGorsev.UpwardorCorp,
11theCourtofAppeal
inapatentinfringementcase,heldforthedefendantwithoutreferenceto
theO’Haradecisionandwithoutdrawingonitslogic.TheCourtdid,
however,applyapurposiveconstructiontothepatentincomingtothe
conclusionthatthevariantputforwardbythedefendantdidnotfallwithin
themonopolyclaimed.

11
(1989),25C.P.R.(3d)166,27F.T.R.256,24C.I.P.R.49(F.C.T.D.);affd.(1992),40C.P.R.(3d)
479,140N.R.295(F.C.A.).

5CONCLUSION
TheO’HaradecisiondoesnotappeartohavestartedanytrendinCanada
towardstherestrictionoftherightsofthepatenteeincasesofinfringementin
substance.Thedecisionsimplyadaptedthedoctrineofpurposive
constructiontotheparticularfactsofthecaseand,morespecifically,toan
expressprovisionofessentialityfoundinthedisclosure.TheFederalCourtof
Appealcouldonatleastthreeoccasionshaverepeatedtheexercisecarried
outintheO’Haradecision,ithashaschoseninsteadtorepeatandapplythe
doctrineofpurposiveconstructionsetoutinCatnicandintheBeecham
decisionoftheFederalCourtofAppeal,whichpre-datesO’Harabysixyears.
O’HaraiscitedintheFederalCourtofAppealdecisionofFeherguard
ProductsLtd.v.Rocky’sofB.C.LeisureLtd.
12,butonlyinrelationtoa
statementoflawthatcomesfromCatnic,eventhoughCatnicitselfisnot
cited.ThesamecanbesaidfortheCourt’sdecisioninMobilOilCorp.v.
HerculesCanadaInc.
13wherethereferenceisclearlytoastatementofthe
lawfromCatnicwithrespecttowhetherliteralandsubstantialinfringement
aretwocausesofactionorone.
Thepurposiveconstructiondoctrinedoesnotthereforeautomaticallyresultin
victoryforthepatenteewhenitisappliedproperly.Itissugggestedthatthe
doctrine,insofarasitconcernstheinterpretationofthepatentandthe
evaluationofasituationofallegedinfringement,istheapproachpresently
favouredintheFederalCourtofAppeal.Whenappliedinthemanner
suggestedbyLordDiplockinCatnic,itshouldresultmoreoftenthannotina
fairrulingforbothpartiestopatentinfringementactions.
U.K.lawmayhavechangedbynow,asaresultoftheProtocolonthe
interpretationofarticle69oftheEuropeanPatentConvention,whichapplies
totherelevantprovisionsofthePatentsActof1977(U.K.)relatingtothe
interpretationoftheclaimsofapatent.ThereissomedebateinEuropeat
thistimeonwhetherthewholeofCatnic’spurposiveconstructiondoctrine
correspondswiththeProtocol.Whetherthetwoapproachesarethesame,
andwhetherreferencetoLordDiplock’sformulationofthetestisnecessaryor
not,issomethingforEuropeanCourtstodecide.Sufficeittosaythatin
Canada,thedecisionsrenderedbytheFederalCourtofAppealandCourts
offirstinstancesinceCatnichaveestablishedasatisfactorybodyofrulesand
principlestoguidedecisionsinCanadianpatentinfringementcases.

12
(1995)60C.P.R.(3d)512atp.515.
13
(1995)63C.P.R.(3d)473atp.488.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD