Purposive Construction in Canadian Patent Cases
PURPOSIVECONSTRUCTIONINCANADIANPATENTCASES
NathalieJodoinandAlexandraSteele*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001VictoriaSquare-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
ForthefirsttimesincetheEnglishdecisionofCatnicComponentsLtd.v.Hill&
SmithLtd.[1982]RPC183(HL),theSupremeCourtofCanadahasrendered
judgementonseveralimportantissuesconcerningpatentinfringementand
theinterpretationofclaimsinpatentcases.
IntwounanimousdecisionsrenderedonDecember15,2000,theCourt
settledthecontroversysurroundingthefollowingissues:
1.IsthepurposiveconstructiondoctrineproposedinCatnic,andfollowed
byourCourtssince,applicabletotheanalysisofinfringementonly,oris
thedoctrinealsoapplicabletothequestionofvalidity?
2.Istherelevantdatefortheinterpretationofclaims:(a)thedateof
issuanceofthepatent,(b)thedateoffilingoftheapplication,(c)the
dateofpriorityoftheapplication,(d)thedateofpublication(laid
open)oftheapplication?
3.Isanallegationofinfringementtobeanalysedintwoseparatesteps
namelytextualinfringementandinfringementinsubstance,oristhere
butonecauseofaction?
4.Isthefollowingprinciplefounded?
Ifavariantofanaspectofaclaimhasnomaterialeffectonthe
waytheinventionworksthereisapresumptionthatthepatentis
infringedandthatthepatenteeintendedthatthatvariantfalls
withinthescopeoftheclaim.
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2001*NathalieJodoin,Lawyer,EngineerandPatentAgentandAlexandraSteele,Lawyer,are
membersofthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andofthepatentandtrade-mark
agencyfirmROBIC,g.p.
5.Isextrinsicevidenceadmissibletodeterminetheintentionofthe
Patentee?
HereisabriefsummaryofeachoftheCourtdecisions.
ThepatentsinWhirlpoolCorp.v.CamcoInc.,(2000)CSC67,(hereinafter
“Whirlpool”)concernedwashingmachinesforclothes.Intheearly1970s,
Whirlpooldevelopedadualactionwashingmachine,forwhichapatent
expiredin1996.Whirlpoolperfectedthisdualactionmachinewhichgave
birthtoasecondpatentthatexpiredin1996.Whirlpoolonceagain
perfecteditsmachinesbyaddingflexiblevanestothisdualactionsystem
whichgavebirthtoathirdpatentthatexpiredin1998.
ThelitigationbetweenthepartiesbeganwhenWhirlpoolsuedCamco
allegingthattherewasinfringementoncertainclaimsofthesecondpatent
andalltheclaimsofthethirdpatent.Initsdefence,Camcoallegedthatthe
secondpatenthadnotbeeninfringedbecauseoneofthecomponentsof
theirmachineswasnotdetachable.Thepartiesagreedthatthiswastheonly
factorindeterminingiftherewasinfringement.Camcoalsoallegedthatthe
thirdpatentwasinvalidinviewofthefactthattheinventionclaimedwas
widerthantheinventiondescribed.
TheTrialJudgeconcludedthatthedetachablecomponentwasnot
essentialtotheinventionand,therefore,theclaimswerenotwiderthanthe
inventiondescribed.Healsoconcludedastothevalidityofthesecond
patent.Asconcernedthethirdpatent,theTrialJudgeconcludedthatthe
patentwasvalidandthatalltheclaimshadbeeninfringed.
ThedecisionoftheTrialDivisionwasupheldbytheCourtofAppeal.
TheprincipalquestionbeforetheCourtwaswhethertheword »vane »usedin
theclaimsofthesecondpatenthadtobeinterpretedasincludingflexible
vanes,orrather,waslimitedtorigidvanes.TheCourthadtodeterminethe
importantquestionofthemethodtofollowinordertointerpretapatent.
TheHonourableJusticeIanBinnie,writingfortheCourt,concludedthatthe
« purposiveconstruction »doctrine,asformulatedintheCatniccase,hadto
beappliedinordertodeterminethevalidityortheinfringementofaclaim.
Headdedthatthe »purposiveconstruction »doctrinewasfoundedonthe
identificationbytheCourt,withthehelpofapersonskilledintheart,ofwhat,
accordingtotheinventor,constitutedtheessentialelementsofthe
invention.TheCourtalsoestablishedthattherelevantdateforclaim
interpretationwasthedateofpublicationofthepatent,namely,thedateof
issuanceofthepatentforapplicationsfiledbeforeOctober1,1989,orthe
dateatwhichthepatentapplicationbecameaccessibletothepublicfor
applicationsfiledafterOctober1,1989.
TheCourtruledthatonemustnotrefersolelytothedictionarytointerpretthe
meaningofwordsusedinclaimsandthatitisjustifiabletolooktothewhole
ofthespecification,includingthedrawings,inordertounderstandthe
meaningofthewordsusedintheclaims,butnevertoenlargenorrestrictthe
scopeoftheclaims.Itisalsointerestingtonotethateventhoughtheparties
hadagreedthatthevanesinthesecondpatentincludedflexibleandrigid
vanes,theCourtconsideredthatsuchanagreementdidnotbindtheTrial
Judge,astheinterpretationofclaimsisaquestionoflawandtheTrialJudge
couldrevisetheinterpretationmadebytheparties.
Asconcernedthethirdpatent,theCourtconfirmedthedecisionoftheTrial
Judgeastotheinventivecharacterandnatureoftheflexiblevanesand
consequently,thepatentwasvalidandtherewasinfringementoncertain
claims.
ThesecondcaseconsideredbytheCourtwasFreeWorldTrustv.Electro-
SantéInc.,(2000)CSC66(hereinafter“FreeWorldTrust”).Thiscase
concernedthevalidityandtheinfringementoftwopatentsownedbyFree
WorldTrust.Thesepatentsclaimedanapparatuswhichbombarded
differentpartsofthehumanbodywithlowfrequencyelectro-magnetic
waves.Thistypeofapparatusalreadyexistedandthesecondpatentwasan
improvementpatent.
Électro-Santéhadputoutanapparatuswhichenabledonetoobtainthe
sametherapeuticeffectsbutwiththehelpofamicro-controller.FreeWorld
TrustallegedthatÉlectro-Santéhadmisappropriatedtheessentialelements
ofitsinventionandthattherewasinfringementforthisreason.Onitspart,
Électro-Santéallegedthattherewasnoinfringementandthat,inanyevent,
thepatentswereinvalidforlackofnovelty.
TheTrialJudgeconcludedtotheinvalidityofbothpatentsforlackofnovelty
anddidnotdecideonthequestionofinfringement.
TheCourtofAppealsubsequentlydeclaredbothpatentsvalid.Nonetheless,
itdismissedtheallegationsofinfringementbycomparingtheÉlectro-Santé
apparatus,nottotheclaims,butrathertotheFreeWorldTrustapparatus,
whichisimproper.
AccordingtotheCourt,theprincipalquestiontoberesolvedinpatent
casesis:Inwhatmeasuredoesthemonopolyconferredbyapatentprotect
theessentialorthespiritoftheinventionasopposedtowhatisexpressly
enouncedinthewrittenclaims?
TheCourtconcludedthatthePatenteemustclearlylimitthescopeofhis
monopolybydefiningitintheclaims.Whilecertainelementsdescribedinthe
claimsareessentialtotheworkingsoftheinvention,othersmaybe
consideredbytheinventor,orthePatentee,asnonessential.Itisuptothe
Courtstomakethisdeterminationbyinterpretingtheclaimswiththehelpof
apersonskilledintheart.Inordertoresolvethedebateconcerningboth
thevalidityofpatentsandinfringement,theanalysismustbeginwiththe
interpretationofclaims.
TheCourtenumeratedtheprincipleswhichmustbefollowedinthe
evaluationofinfringement:
« a)ThePatentActpromotesadherencetothelanguageoftheclaims.
b)Adherencetothelanguageoftheclaimsinturnpromotesboth
fairnessandpredictability.
c)Theclaimlanguagemust,however,bereadinaninformedand
purposiveway.
d)Thelanguageoftheclaimsthusconstrueddefinesthemonopoly.
Thereisnorecoursetosuchvaguenotionsasthe“spiritofthe
invention”toexpanditfurther.
e)Theclaimslanguagewill,onapurposiveconstruction,showthat
someelementsoftheclaimedinventionareessentialwhileothers
arenon-essential.Theidentificationofelementsasessentialornon-
essentialismade:
(i)onthebasisofthecommonknowledgeoftheworker
skilledinthearttowhichthepatentrelates;
(ii)asofthedatethepatentispublished;
(iii)havingregardtowhetherornotitwasobvioustothe
skilledreaderatthetimethepatentwaspublishedthata
variantofaparticularelementwouldnotmakea
differencetothewayinwhichtheinventionworks;or
(iv)accordingtotheintentoftheinventor,expressedor
inferredfromtheclaims,thataparticularelementis
essentialirrespectiveofitspracticaleffect;
(v)without,however,resorttoextrinsicevidenceofthe
inventor’sinvention.
(vi)Thereisnoinfringementifanessentialelementisdifferent
oromitted.Theremaystillbeinfringement,however,if
non-essentialelementsaresubstitutedoromitted. »
Bywayofprinciplesa)tod),theCourtreaffirmedtheprinciplesofthe
primacyofclaimswhichwasprofoundlyentrenchedinourjurisprudence.The
CourtupheldthesinglecauseofactionprincipleofCatnic.Theprinciples
mentionedine),includingsub-paragraphsi)tov),indicatethestepstobe
followedtoseparate,accordingtopurposiveconstruction,theessential
elementsfromthenon-essentialelements.
Asforthedeterminingdatetointerpretclaims,theCourtruledthatitisthe
dateofpublicationofthepatentwhichis,aspreviouslymentioned,thedate
ofissuanceofthepatentforapplicationsfiledbeforeOctober1,1989,orthe
dateatwhichthepatentapplicationbecomesaccessibletothepublicfor
applicationsfiledafterOctober1,1989.
Finally,theCourtestablishedthatinevaluatingthescopeofthemonopoly,
noextrinsicevidenceisadmissibletodemonstratetheintentionofthe
Patenteeastotheessentialorthenon-essentialcharacteroftheelements
norfortheconstructionoftheclaims.Inthiscase,andbyfollowingthe
analysisproposed,theCourtcametotheconclusionthatthecircuitsdefined
intheclaimsoftheFreeWorldTrustpatentwereessentialelementsand,that
therewasthereforenoinfringement.
Throughbothdecisions,theCourtputanendtomanyofthecontroversies
whichhaddevelopedintheCanadianCourts,moreparticularlysincethe
EnglishcaseofCatnicrenderedin1982andinsodoingclarifiedthelawin
respectofpatentclaimconstructionandpatentinfringement.
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
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.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,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD