First
PreviousA Study on the Patent Law Standard of Non-obviousness: Footnotes
Footnotes
1. (1931) Ex.C.R.180
2. Burns & Russell of Canada Ltd. v. Day & Campbell Limited (1966) Ex.C.R. 673 at 681-682
3. (1986) 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289 at 295
4. (1982) 61 C.P.R. (2d) 1 at 27
5. (1986) 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289 at 295
6. (1979) 42 C.P.R. (2d) 161
7. Bernard F. Roussin, Comparative Review of the Patentability Requirements for Chemical Products and Synthesis, Canadian Patent Reporter, Vol. 15, pp. 49-67, 1952
8. Samuel Parkes & Co. Ld. v. Cocker Brothers Ld. (1929), 46 R.P.C. 241 at 248
9. The King v. Uhlemann Optical Company, Canadian Law Report, 1950, Ex. C. 142
10. This will be elaborated more fully later in the report, with a summary of comments from public hearings on the standard of non-obviousness held on July 20, 1994 at the United States Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office.
11. (1931) Ex.C.R.180
12. (1966) Ex.C.R. 673 at 681-682
13. (1979) 42. C.P.R. (2d) 145, at 155-157
14. (1982) 61 C.P.R. (2d) 1 at 27
15. (1984) 78 C.P.R. (2d) 1 at 49
16. (1986) 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289 at 295
17. [1972] R.P.C. 457 (C.A.) at 481-482
18. Canadian Patent Law & Practice, 4th Ed., (1969) Carswell, at 184-186
19. (1986) 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289 at 295
20. Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet OY (1986) 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289 at 295
21. 40 C.P.R. (3d) 1 at 10-11
22. (1995) 60 C.P.R. (3d) 58
23. Beecham Canada Ltd. v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1982), 61 C.P.R. (2d) 1 at 27
24. Allied Signal Inc. v. DuPont Canada Inc. (1995) 61 C.P.R. (3d) 417 at 426
25. [1930] S.C.R. 443 at 456
26. 45 C.P.R. 1 at 32
27. [1926] 4 D.L.R. 285 at p. 287, 43 R.P.C. 356
28. (1876) 3 Ch.D. 531 at 556
29. Canadian Patent Law & Practice, 4th Ed., (1969) Carswell, pages 103-107
30. [1938] Ex.C.R.47 at 73-74, per MacLean, P.
31. Eli Lilly and Company et al. v. Marzone Chemicals Ltd. et al. (1978) 37 C.P.R. (2d) 1 at 33 affirmed; (1978) 37 C.P.R. 3
32. (1988) 18 C.P.R. (3d) 417 (F.C.T.D.) at 435 - 436, per Strayer J.; aff'd 32 C.P.R. (3d) 409 (F.C.A.)
33. Eli Lilly op cit at p. 35
34. (1991) 40 C.P.R. (3d) 1 (F.C.T.D.) at 45-48 per Teitelbaum J.
35. (1991) 35 C.P.R. (3d) (F.C.A.) per Decary J.A., at 367-368
36. (1990), 30 C.P.R. (3d) 420 (F.C.T.D.) at 463-464, per Pinard J.
37. Samuel Parkes & Co. Ld. v. Cocker Brothers Ld. (1929) 46 R.P.C. 241 at 248
38. (1977) 33 C.P.R. (2d) 24 at 53
39. (1991) 35 C.P.R. (3d) at 350 at 365 and 367, per Decary J.A.
40. (1986) 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289 at 295, at 295 (F.C.A.), per Hugessen J.A.
41. (1979) 42. C.P.R. (2d) 145 at 157, per Pigeon J.
42. (1987) 18 C.P.R. (3d) 180 (F.C.A.) at 188 per Stone J.A., affirming 13 C.P.R. (3d) 410
43. Sommerville Paper Boxes Ltd. et al v. Cormier et al (1939) 2 C.P.R. 181 (Ex.Ch.)
44. Samuel Parkes & Co. Ltd. v. Cocker Bros. Ltd. (1929), 46 R.P.C. at 248
45. Re Application 063,607, 12 C.P.R. (2d) 148-152
46. Niagara Wire Weaving Co. v. Johnson Wire Works Ltd. (1939), 1 C.P.R. 229 at p. 243, [1939] Ex.C.R.259 at p. 273, [1939] 3 D.L.R. 285
47. (1932) Ex.C.R. 89, 101 and 127; (1933) S.C.R. 363, 371; and 377; (1934) 51 R.P.C. 349
48. Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. et al. v. Comer (1941), 1 C.P.R. 75 at p. 93, [1941] 2 D.L.R. 10, [1942] Ex. C.R. 138 at p. 155
49. Ernest Scragg & Sons v. Leesona 45 C.P.R. 1
50. O'Cedar of Canada Limited v. Mallory Hardware Products Limited (1955), 15 Fox Pat. C 134, at page 152; 24 C.P.R. 103 at p. 123, [1956] Ex.C.R.299
51. Patent Exploitation Ltd. v. Siemens Bros. N Co. (1904), 21 R.P.C. 541 at p. 549 per Lord Davey
52. Teledyne Industries Inc. et al. v. Lido Industrial Products Limited (1979) 45 C.P.R. (2d) 18 (F.C.T.D.) November 14, 1979, upheld on appeal (1981), 57 C.P.R. (2d) 29, leave to appeal the Supreme Court refused 59 C.P.R. (2d) 183
53. 42 C.P.R. (2d) 145, at 155-157
54. [1976] R.P.C. 231, p. 257
55. Roger T. Hughes, Degree of Inventiveness Required to Support a Patent in Canada, Canadian Intellectual Property Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1987, pp. 40-46
56. G. Douglas Wilson, "Recent Developments in the Meaning of Obviousness: Is the Pendulum Swinging?", Canadian Intellectual Property Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1987, pp. 388-404
57. John Bochnovic, Invention/Inventive Step/Obviousness, In Patent Laws Canada, Ed. Gordon F. Henderson, Thompson Canada Limited 1994
58. (1979) 42 C.P.R. (2d), page 161 to 180
59. 29 C.P.R. (2d) 116-123
60. 4 C.P.R. (3d) 280
61. Re Application No. 005,341 (Now Patent No. 1,006,418) 32 C.P.R. (2d) 62-66
62. Re Application for patent of Lummus Co. (Now Patent No. 1,109,388) 59 C.P.R. (2d) 228-233
63. 49 C.P.R. (2d) 255-262
64. (1980) 45 C.P.R. (2d) 18 (F.C.T.D.) November 14, 1979, upheld on appeal (1981), 57 C.P.R. (2d) 29, leave to appeal the Supreme Court refused 59 C.P.R. (2d) 183
65. Re Application No. 010,866 (Patent No. 973,863) 32 C.P.R. (2d) 105-113
66. 32 C.P.R. (2d) 105-113
67. Re Application for Patent by Turner (Patent No. 1,093,051) 59 C.P.R. (2d) 260-264
68. 35 C.P.R. (2d) 282-286
69. (1968) 52 C.P.R. 140 (Ex. Ct.), April 21, 1967.
70. 35 C.P.R. (2d), 262-266
71. 39 C.P.R. (2d), 88-94
72. 24 C.P.R. (2d), 165-171
73. (1973), 8 C.P.R. (2d) 6 (F.C.T.D.) Pratte J. November 14, 1972
74. From interviews with Canadian examiner's specializing in the field of biotechnology, 1995.
75. Mr. Razzano, President, New York Intellectual Property Law Association
76. Sharpe & Dome Inc. v. Boots Pure Drug Co. Ltd. (1928) 45 R.P.C. 153 at p. 163
77. (1982) 61 C.P.R. (2d) 1 at 27
78. (1986) 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289
79. Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valment OY (1986) 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289 at 295
80. (1979) 42 C.P.R. (2d) 161
81. Bernard F. Roussin, Comparative Review of the Patentability Requirements for Chemical Products and Synthesis, Canadian Patent Reporter, Vol. 15, pp. 49-67, 1952
82. American Cyanamid Co. v. Charles E. Frost & Co., 47 C.P.R. 215 at 300
83. American Cyanamid Co. v. Charles E. Frost & Co., 47 C.P.R. 215, at 300-301
84. 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1851)
85. 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1851)
86. 383 U.S. 1 at 17, 1966
87. 383 U.S. 1 at 17, 1966
88. 412 F. 2d 250, 162 U.S.P.Q. at 39
89. 515 F. 2d 1134, 185 U.S.P.Q. 781 (1975)
90. 383 U.S. 1 at 17, 1966
91. 1 USPQ2d 1196 (1986) p. 1201
92. 218 USPQ 865 (1983) p. 868-869; see also Bausch & Lomb v. Barnes-Hind Hydrocurve, 230 USPQ 416 (1986) p. 420
93. 217 USPQ 1281 (1983) p. 1285
94. 226 USPQ 6761 (1985) p. 680-681
95. 774 F.2d 1082, 1099-1100, 227 U.S.P.Q.
96. 579 F. Supp. 353, 366-68, 218 U.S.P.Q. 618 (E.D. Pa. 1983), aff'd, 727 F. 2d 1506, 220 U.S.P.Q. 929 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 105 S. Ct. 220 (1984)
97. 727 F.2d 1524, 1530, 220 U.S.P.Q. 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
98. 227 USPQ 543 (1985) p. 548
99. 1 USPQ2d 1593 (1987) p. 1602
100. 137 USPQ (1963) p. 43
101. 223 USPQ 1260, 1263, Fed. Cir. 1984, cited in Re Papesch 137 USPQ 43, 47 (CCPA 1963)
102. "Nonobviousness and the Circuit Courts of Appeals - Twenty-Five Years in Review", In "Nonobviousness - the Ultimate Condition of Patentability", J.F. Witherspoon, published by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 1980
103. As of May 1995 there were approximately 5,500 Old Act cases (cases filed before October 1. 1989). Of these one half were biotechnology/pharmaceutical cases. (These numbers were provided by a Canadian biotechnology Examiner)
104. Cornell Law Review, Vol. 79, pp. 735-765, 1994, Cornell University
105. Brian C. Cannon, "Towards a Clear Standard of Obviousness for Biotechnology Patents", Cornell Law Review, Vol. 79, pp. 735-765, 1994, Cornell University
106. 16 U.S.P.Q. 2d pp. 1897
107. 991 F2d 781, 26 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1529 (Fed. Cir 1993)
108. 51 F.3d 1552, 34 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
109. From interviews with Canadian practitioners specializing in the field of biotechnology, 1995.
110. Sandoz Patents Ltd. v. Gilcross Ltd. et al., (1972) 8 C.P.R. 2d p. 218
111. BVD. v. Canadian Celanese (1936) Ex. C.R. 140
112. Minerals Separation North American Corpn. v. Noranda Mines Ltd., [1947] Ex.C.R.306 at 352
113. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. et al. v. Biorex Laboratories Ltd. et al. (1972) R.P.C. 157
114. (1979) 42 C.P.R. 2d, p. 161
115. Section 40 of the Patent Act
116. Monsanto Co. v. The Commissioner of Patents (1979) 42 C.P.R. 2d, p. 161
117. 56 C.P.R. 2d, 204; 63 C.P.R. 2d, 261
118. 1992, 22 I.P.R. 417
119. Commissioner of Patents v. Benson et al., 175 U.S.P.Q., 673
120. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil 227 U.S.P.Q. 543 (1985) p. 548
121. Re Papesch 137 U.S.P.Q. (1963) p. 43
122. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co. 1 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1593 (1987) p. 1602
123. September 1995, Patentability Criteria: Novelty and Inventive Step in relation to Biotechnology Inventions
124. (1995) 60 C.P.R. (3d) 58 at 77-82
125. Sharpe & Dome Inc. v. Boots Pure Drug Co. Ltd. (1928) 45 R.P.C. 153 at p. 163
126. (1982) 61 C.P.R. (2d) 1 at 27
127. (1984) 78 C.P.R. (2d) 1 at 49
128. (1979) 42 C.P.R. (2d) 161