Your search

To what extent can statements made by an applicant, intrinsic to a patent specification, be accepted as facts? Is this question context-dependent, or is there a hard-line rule that applies across the board? Should it matter what patent law issue is involved: patentable subject matter; obviousness; claim construction? Perhaps most importantly, why does this question matter? What is at stake? This piece argues that there should be a judicial apprehension towards recognizing the blanket proposition that applicant statements within a patent specification can be accepted as matter of fact supporting a determination regarding common general knowledge. Specifically, there should be a judicial apprehension towards endorsing the acceptance of statements made within a patent specification as factual determinations regarding the state of the art or common general knowledge of a hypothetical skilled artisan, when such assertions lack reference to any factual source that is extrinsic to the patent document. Broadly, this piece argues that the law/fact distinction should be drawn along the corresponding intrinsic/extrinsic distinction.

This article provides guidance concerning alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options for ownership disputes of inventions conceived within universities. Focusing on an interest-based approach to mediation, this article begins by summarizing the key principles of interest-based mediation. The objective of the interest-based approach to dispute resolution is to explore options for a negotiated resolution that satisfies the interests of all parties. For a negotiated resolution to be the best option for all parties to the dispute, it must present a resolution more favourable than each party’s best alternative to a negotiated resolution (“BATNA”). A BATNA revolves around the outcomes a legal resolution (i.e., litigation) might provide compared to possible negotiated resolutions. Accordingly, a substantial portion of this article focuses on summarizing some of the legal issues at play in most invention ownership disputes. The article then turns to the university context. One of the central objectives of this article is to highlight how the contemporary university is a unique segment of today’s society, in that it is an eclectic mix of economic, social and legal values. The contemporary university rests on neither end of the economic spectrum. It is neither a marketplace driven solely by free market relationships, nor is it a social institution motivated by public interest only. Approaching university policymaking, and specifically, invention ownership policy, entirely from either end of this spectrum is bound to result in disputes. Accordingly, the paper argues that those interested in seeking creative avenues for mitigating against and resolving ownership disputes of inventions must remain sensitive to this reality. Keywords: patent, mediation

In Actavis v Eli Lilly, the UK Supreme Court overturned its previous Kirin-Amgen decision, ushered in a new U.K. doctrine of ‘extended protection’, and in so doing, proclaimed that it had finally brought U.K. patent jurisprudence in line with the objectives of Article 69 of the European Patent Convention [EPC]. A considerable amount of commentary leading up to Actavis, as well as the Actavis judgment itself, highlighted how U.K. patent jurisprudence of the post-Article 69 era suffered from a flawed, U.K.-centric tunnel vision, instinctively presuming that Article 69 was simply a reflection of existing U.K. patent practice and, as such, U.K. patent law was already in compliance with EPC obligations. The weight of opinion was that Article 69 was meant to stake out a middle ground of claim scope, between literalistic, peripheral-style claiming, exemplified by traditional U.K. patent jurisprudence, and the non-literalistic, central-style claiming, exemplified by traditional German patent jurisprudence. In extending protection beyond literal claim infringement to cover non-literal equivalents, the UKSC declared that it had finally moved U.K. patent doctrine to the desired middle ground of the Article 69. However, what these commentaries overlook is that movement away from literalism was not the only shift in U.K. patent practice that Article 69 intended to achieve. Rather, a historical and comparative analysis demonstrates that in the lead-up to Article 69, commentators and EPC negotiators held similar apprehensions regarding the U.K. ‘colourable evasion’ doctrine. To these commentators, ‘colourable evasion’ embodied many of the concerns surrounding both literalistic, peripheral claiming and non-literal, central claiming. Similarly to literalism, ‘colourable evasion’ relied almost entirely on judicial interpretation, as opposed to the more fact-based and infringement-focused claim scope doctrines of Continental patent practice. Furthermore, like the non-literalistic approach of central claiming, such as the German ‘general inventive concept’, ‘colourable evasion’ could undermine the notice function of claims by permitting the judicial vitiation of claim elements based entirely on a generalized ‘inventive concept’. Post-Actavis jurisprudence demonstrates that the Actavis test, with its reliance on the inventive concept as the point of departure for non-literal infringement, has re-introduced many of the same concerns associated with both the U.K. ‘colourable evasion’ doctrine and the German ‘general inventive concept’. Accordingly, the Actavis test, in many ways, may be a return of ‘colourable evasion’ and the ‘general inventive concept’ rather than the doctrine of ‘pith and marrow’. The irony is that in pursuit of harmonization, German patent practice abandoned the ‘general inventive concept’ only now to see its return in the form of the U.K.’s Actavis test. In this sense, while Actavis took a critical view of preceding jurisprudence’s narrow, U.K.-centric reluctance to embrace the trans-European harmonization goals of Article 69, Actavis may end up undermining its own objectives of finally breaking free from the cycle of U.K.-centric patent practice.

This draft chapter is part of a larger research project exploring the question of patent quality from a human agency perspective. This chapter explores the changing relationship between agency, and specifically, 'professionalized' agency, and patent quality.

Only registered Canadian patent agents may represent others before the Canadian Patent Office. To qualify as a registered Canadian patent agent, candidates must complete an apprenticeship followed by successfully passing the Canadian patent agent examination. This article analyzes the validity of the current Canadian patent agent exam. The analysis includes a comprehensive review of the development of the current exam, as well as a review of candidate solution papers from the most recent exams.

Tremendous confusion has revolved around the theory and application of the doctrine of essential elements in Canadian patent law ever since the Supreme Court of Canada first introduced the doctrine in Free World Trust c. Électro Santé Inc. In recent years, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office’s (CIPO) interpretation and application of the doctrine in its patent application examination guidelines has been the subject of considerable criticism from the Canadian patent profession. However, CIPO’s misapplication of the doctrine in recent years’ Patent Agent Qualifying Examination has received relatively little attention. This paper examines the application of the doctrine of essential elements in recent years’ Canadian Patent Agent Qualifying Examination. The analysis begins with a thorough and comprehensive review of the doctrine of essential elements under Canadian patent law. The analysis reviews the last ten years’ Canadian Patent Agent Examination, with a focus on recent years’ emphasis on the doctrine of essentiality. Despite the fact that the doctrine itself is still unsettled under Canadian law, the approach taken on recent years’ Patent Agent Exams is at best an ambiguous, and at worst an inaccurate application of the doctrine. This paper concludes by demonstrating that the concerns surrounding the doctrine of essentiality may be significant contributing factor to invalidity issues surrounding recent years’ Patent Agent Exams.

Only registered Canadian patent agents may represent others before the Canadian Patent Office. To qualify as a registered Canadian patent agent, candidates must complete an apprenticeship followed by successfully passing the Canadian patent agent examination. This article analyzes the current regulatory framework for Canadian patent agents. Based on a theoretical, historical and international comparative analysis, this article demonstrates that the current Canadian regulatory model has lost sight of its purpose and is symptomatic of a greater crisis of legitimacy plaguing the Canadian patent agent profession. The article highlights the need for greater reform of the Canadian patent agent regulatory framework in order to better serve the intellectual property needs of the Canadian public. This article concludes with a series of comprehensive recommendations for reform of the current Canadian regulatory framework.

The Canadian government has recently tabled legislation for self-governance of the Canadian patent and trademark agent professions, thereby creating the Canadian College of Patent and Trademark Agents. As such, regulation of the Canadian patent and trademark agent professions might become unique amongst comparable countries – Canada’s self-regulatory body may have authority over setting and administering competency-based standards, ethical standards and continuing professional education.With respect to patent agency, self-regulation of the Canadian profession comes at a pivotal time, not just for Canada, but in technological history generally. We are now moving into the age of the fourth Industrial Revolution, where file sharing, additive manufacturing (i.e. 3D printing) and artificial intelligence (AI) are democratizing invention and along with it challenging long-standing patent law concepts. Furthermore, developments in AI are set to disrupt our traditional notions of professionalization and the delivery of professional services. Patent agency rests on the nexus of both movements and as such, patent agency and patent agent self-governance are approaching unique historical crossroads.Part 2 of this piece critically analyzes the new College of Patent Agents and Trade-mark Agents Act [College Act] in view of the issues and concerns set out under Part 1. Part 2 argues that a responsive regulation approach to patent agent governance is required to ensure that Canadian patent agency remains open and flexible to the challenges ahead. From this perspective, Part 2 assesses the ways in which the proposed College Act appears to achieve the necessary responsiveness and where it falls short. In some instances, the analysis under Part 2 will also provide proposed revisions or additions to the College Act intended to better address the concerns set out under Part 1.

The majority of proposals for international antidumping reform focus almost entirely on the relevant economic factors- consumer welfare losses and gains. Therefore, almost all proposals come to the exact same conclusion; in light of the enormous welfare losses suffered by domestic consumers, international antidumping law should be repealed in its entirety, or at least replaced by some form of international competition law. However, this analysis views the issue of antidumping law through the constructivist lens, and more specifically, the embedded liberalism view of international trade law. From this perspective, economics alone does not grasp the constitutive realities at play in antidumping law; domestic perspectives of legitimacy and fairness shape the contours of international antidumping law, and these constitutive norms espouse a view that protectionism, in a variety of different shapes and forms, is as much a part of international trade law as the traditional laissez-faire liberalist approach. This paper concludes that public interest inquiries, which form part of a small number of countries’ antidumping laws, embraces the constitutive realities at play in antidumping law and provide an opportunity for development of legitimate international antidumping reform. This paper examines the Canadian approach to public interest inquiry in antidumping, including recent developments. This paper concludes that the current Canadian experience demonstrates that embracing a public interest inquiry as part of antidumping reform may provide true hope for future development based on a embedded liberalism view of international trade relations.

The Canadian government has recently tabled legislation for self-governance of the Canadian patent and trademark agent professions, thereby creating the Canadian College of Patent and Trademark Agents. As such, regulation of the Canadian patent and trademark agent professions might become unique amongst comparable countries – Canada’s self-regulatory body may have authority over setting and administering competency-based standards, ethical standards and continuing professional education.With respect to patent agency, self-regulation of the Canadian profession comes at a pivotal time, not just for Canada, but in technological history generally. We are now moving into the age of the fourth Industrial Revolution, where file sharing, additive manufacturing (i.e. 3D printing) and artificial intelligence (AI) are democratizing invention and along with it challenging long-standing patent law concepts. Furthermore, developments in AI are set to disrupt our traditional notions of professionalization and the delivery of professional services. Patent agency rests on the nexus of both movements and as such, patent agency and patent agent self-governance are approaching unique historical crossroads.Part 1 of this piece highlights some of the issues that the Canadian profession has had to contend with in recent years along with several emerging trends, such as the growing IP clinical movement, new AI-driven service providers and a growing academic interest in the sociology and administration of patent law, all of which are coming to prominence while the Canadian patent agent profession is acquiring self-regulatory authority. Combined with changing notions of the patent system’s role in society, this raises the possibility of conflicts between professional self-interest entrenched within a self-regulatory governance model and shifting perceptions of the public interest. How the new Canadian patent agent self-regulatory body responds to these challenges will define whether Canada will be a leader in forward-thinking patent agency or whether patent agent self-regulation will become a convenient front for professional, rather than public interests.

During the first Industrial Revolution, the patent system developed in an era of democratized invention. Individual inventors dominated patent filings and helped create a narrative surrounding the transformative impact of the patent system on the lives of inventors and society. Existing scholarship often overlooks the role of patent agents, those individuals who assisted inventors in securing patent rights, during this era. Industrial Revolution era patent agency was broad and indiscrete compared to its current form, which was largely a product of the needs of individual inventors and a pre-professionalization view of the discipline. As corporatization slowly replaced the individual inventor and professionalization began to dominate many occupational fields, the professional patent agent materialized. However, the emergence of disruptive technologies in our new Fourth Industrial Revolution may be reversing both of these trends, with the re-emergence of democratized invention and challenging the discretization of many fields of professional service.

This work explores the question of how professionalization of patent agency along with its accompanying discourse has affected the direction of international patent institutions and networks. Professionalization of patent agency is defined as the government regulation of who may provide patent agent services to the public through the form of professional licensing requirements. To the extent that professionalization of patent agency has created a unique discourse of patent agency, to what degree and in what respects has this discourse transformed global patent institutions? In particular, has this discourse created a form of ‘epistemic’ or ‘cultural’ capture that has the effect of delegitimizing other valid forms of discourse? Through the application of several methodologies, namely, historical analyses, doctrinal analyses and qualitative empirical work, this study attempts to create what epistemic capture theorists refer to as a capture story, which is a story of how cultural influences of a regulated industry – here, professional patent agents – come to dominate the regulatory discourse to the exclusion of other viable, competing conceptions of what constitutes the public interest. This work concludes that professionalization of agency within the patent system is interconnected with enablement as an organizing principle of the patent system as a social institution. Prior to professionalization, when agency was democratized throughout the patent system, so too was democratized enablement a guiding principle of the patent system. The formation of a unique, legitimized professional patent agent epistemic community has resulted in diminishing the democratization of enablement across the patent system as a social institution. This work discusses several of the practical and normative implications of the diminishing value of democratized enablement. Finally, this work concludes with a discussion of the future prospects of agency within the patent system.