Trying to define Criteria For Inventiveness of a Patent: It Is Not an Obvious Task

TRYINGTODEFINECRITERIAFORINVENTIVENESSOFAPATENT:
ITISNOTANOBVIOUSTASK

ADAMMIZERA*
LEGER
ROBICRICHARD,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS
TheFederalCourtofAppealofCanadahadtorecentlyevaluatethelevelof
inventivenessrequiredtomakeaninventionpatentable.Moreparticularly,in
NovopharmLimitedv.Janssen-OrthoInc.(2007FCA217),theCourthadtoexamine
thevalidityofapatentinthepharmaceuticalfield.Thevalidityofthepatentwas
underattackforseveralreasons,includinglackofinventiveness,bythedefendant
Novopharmaccusedofpatentinfringement.
Suchaquestionisimportantforaninventorduringtheevaluationofapatentfiling
strategyindifferentcountrieswhentheinventionisconsideredtohavea
“questionable”levelofinventiveness.Theinventorwouldmaybeavoidfilingapatent
applicationforsuchaninventionincountrieswherethelevelofinventiveness
requiredforobtainingapatentishigh.
Thepresentcaseconcentratedontheevaluationoftheinventivenessoftheuseofa
subdivision(calledenantiomer)ofachemicalmolecule,whenthebasicmoleculeand
itspropertiesareknown.Novopharmarguedthatsuchanenantiomerwasobviousin
viewoftheknownmoleculeandthatwell-knowntechniquescouldbeusedtoextract
thesubdivisionfromthebasicmolecule.
JusticeHughesinthelowercourtmaintainedthattheclaimedsubdivisionandpatent
wasvalidsincetheuseoftheenantiomerwasnon-obviousinviewofwhatwas
knownaboutthebasicmolecule.AftercarryingoutareviewofCanadian,American
andEnglishcaselaw,JusticeHughesproducedalistoffactorstoconsiderwhen
evaluatingtheinventivenessofapatent.Novopharmappealedtheuseofthislistof
factorsintheevaluationofthenon-obviousnessoftheinvention.
TheCourtofAppealreiteratedthattheonlyacceptedtestofnon-obviousnessin
CanadacomesfromthecaseBeloitCanadaLtd.etal.v.ValmetOY:
[Wouldaskilledtechnician]inthelightofthestateoftheartandof
commongeneralknowledgeattheclaimeddateofinvention,have




























































©CIPS,2007.
*WithLEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP.amultidisciplinaryfirmofLawyers,andPatentandTrade-mark
Agents.PublishedintheSummer2007Newsletterofthefirm(Vol.11,No.3).Publication068.083.

2
comedirectlyandwithoutdifficultytothesolutiontaughtbythe
patent?

TheCourtemphasizedthattheBeloittestmustbefactual,functionalandguidedby
experttestimonyonthelevelofskillandknowledgeofthepersonofordinaryskillin
thefieldoftheinvention.Thecredibilityandreliabilityoftheexperttestimonymustbe
evaluated.
However,theCourtalsostatedthatthereisnosinglequestion,norseriesof
questionsthatcouldbeusedtoevaluatetheinventivenessofaninventionandthat
couldbeappliedtoallsituations.Consequently,theCourtrefusedtoreplacethe
establishedtestofBeloitwiththenewlistoffactorsproposedbyJusticeHughes.
Nevertheless,theCourtofAppealfoundthatJusticeHughes’factorsrepresenta
usefultoolinevaluatinginventivenessthatmustbecarriedoutduringthefactual
analysisofthemoregeneralBeloittest.TheCourtthuspresentedalistoffactors
representinganeditedversionofJusticeHughes’listandincludingthefollowing
elements:
PrincipalFactors

1.Theinvention
2.Theskillspossessedbythehypotheticalpersonofordinaryskillintheart.
3.Thebodyofknowledgeofthepersonofordinaryskillintheart
4.Theclimateintherelevantfieldatthetimetheallegedinventionwasmade
5.Themotivationinexistenceatthetimetheallegedinventiontosolvea
recognizedproblem
6.Thetimeandeffortinvolvedintheinvention

SecondaryFactors

7.Commercialsuccess
8.Meritoriousawardstheinventionreceived
TheCourtthenconsideredthesefactorsandotherargumentssubmittedbythe
Appellanttofinallyrejecttheappeal.
Consequently,aninventornowhasalistoffactorsthatallowabetterevaluationof
theinventivenessofapatent.However,althoughthislistnowexists,determining
withcertaintywhetheraninventionisinventiveornotinCanadaremainsanexercise
thatisfarfrombeingobvioustosolve…

3

4
ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis1892à
laprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessins
industrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
dorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;
informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;
secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;
commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,
litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentand
trademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectual
property:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindications
oforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,
distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHE
WORLD