Obviousness
The Patent Act stipulates that the subject matter defined by a claim in an application for a patent in Canada must be subject matter that would not have been obvious on the claim date to a person skilled in the art or science to which it pertains. The word “invention” implies ingenuity, without which an advance is obvious; and patents are not granted for the obvious.
August 30, 2023
Fed. Cir. 2021-2063, 2021-2065: Sales of a product can be used to prove the inventiveness of a patent, but a US court warns that free samples are not relevant to patentability.
February 3, 2022
Canada's Federal Court dismissed allegations by Paid Search Engine that Google infringed a patent for optimizing paid search engines.
January 24, 2022
Outside Canada, Teva’s Copaxone® 40mg/mL dosing patents have been invalidated for obviousness, making way for generic competitors.
March 26, 2021
2021 FC 85: The Federal Court upheld the validity of all claims, but found that PetroChina was not infringing Maoz Betser-Zilevitch's patent for an SAGD.
March 3, 2021
Fed Cir, 2019-1927: The CAFC overturned a finding of non-obviousness by the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board on a patent owned by Melanoscan, LLC.
November 16, 2020
2020 FC 997: In a summary judgement for patent impeachment, Canada's Federal Court found a patent for heating hydraulic booms to be invalid for obviousness.
September 10, 2020
Fed. Cir. 2019-1622: The CAFC found the same preamble created different limitations for different patents, limiting one patent but not the other.
April 16, 2020
Fed. Cir. 2018-2097 — The CAFC ruled that Valeant's patent for Relistor(R) is prima facie obvious based on similar compounds with overlapping pH ranges.
November 14, 2019
Fed. Cir. 2019-1803 – CAFC sides with Airbus, finding that prior art references may be analogous even if they are outside the "field of endeavour."
September 20, 2019
CAFC 2018-2207 – The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that “wherein” clauses in patent claims can be limiting if they are material to patentability.
September 13, 2019
2019 FC 1065 – Canada's Federal Court ruled that two fiber optics patents were obvious in light of an admission made in the background sections.
July 2, 2019
CAFC confirms that an invention is only obvious and ineligible for a patent where a skilled person would have had a “reasonable expectation of success.”
June 11, 2019
AVX Corporation v Presidio Components (Fed. Cir., 2018-1106) A case recently dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) confirms that […]
June 4, 2019
Fed. Cir., 2018-1434 - CAFC clarifies the test for obviousness where the invention claims a use of a known drug.
November 23, 2018
PAB 1453 – The Patent Appeal Board found that Canadian Patent Application No. 2,612,950 for a “system and method for generating real-time indicators in a trading list or portfolio” was obvious, the claims did not define statutory subject matter and were indefinite.
November 7, 2018
Fed. Cir. 2017-1977 – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirms the legal standard for obviousness in patent law.
July 10, 2018
2017 FCA 225 - Federal Court of Appeal upheld the trial level decision invalidating Ciba's Canadian patent for obviousness, and elaborated on the obviousness inquiry, endorsing an approach that focuses on construing the claims rather than identifying the inventive concept.
January 9, 2018
PAB 1420 - Canadian Patent Application No. 2,529,210 filed by Assurant Inc. for a system that routes customer calls based on a sales agent’s past performance was rejected by the Patent Appeal Board, at least for the reasons of non-statutory subject matter and obviousness.
December 19, 2017
2017 FC 777 - The FC rejected Teva’s allegations that Pfizer's Canadian patent was obvious and lacked utility. The FC found that the POSITA would not have been able to predict the novel crystalline form taught by the patent, and that the subject-matter of the invention claimed in the patent was useful.
December 12, 2017
2017 FC 774 - The FC granted Pfizer's order pursuant to Section 6 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a NOC to Apotex, with respect to a Canadian patent The FC found, on a balance of probabilities, that Apotex’s allegations of obviousness, inutility, non-infringement, overpromising, anticipation and double patenting were not justified.