Usefulness, or utility, is a statutory requirement for patentability. The
standard for utility is low. Utility is a necessary pre-condition for patentability. In order for a patent to be valid, the invention it purports to protect must be useful.
- Filter by
- Categories
- Tags
- Show all
- Article
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Corporate
- Domain Names
- Employment
- Expungement
- Expungement
- Grey Marketing
- Industrial Designs
- Licensing
- Obviousness
- Opposition
- Passing Off
- Patent
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Strategy
- PM(NOC)
- Procedure
- Prosecution
- recognition
- Services
- Summary
- Trade Secrets
- Trade-mark
- Use
- Validity
- 35 US Code §101
- 3D printing
- Abandonment
- abstract theorems
- Abuse of Process
- Accounting of Profits
- acquired distinctiveness
- actions
- actual notice
- agreement
- Alice/Mayo Test
- Ambiguity
- Amendments
- Anticipation
- Appeal
- Apple
- application
- application fee
- arbitrary
- arbitration
- Assignment
- Australia
- Bad Faith
- Bargain Theory
- Bill C-31
- Bill C-43
- Bill C-8
- Bill C-86
- Biologics
- biosimilar
- Biotech Patents
- Blockchain
- border measures
- Brand
- broadcasting
- budget
- burden of proof
- business
- CAFC
- Canada
- Canada Gazette
- Cannabis Law
- causal link
- cdrp
- CEEO
- Certificate of Supplementary Protection
- champerty
- Chemical Patent
- chemistry
- ciba
- CIPO
- CIPO errors
- CIRA
- Claim Construction
- Class Actions
- clerical error
- College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
- combination drugs
- commissioner
- Common General Knowledge
- Complete Code
- Confidential Information
- confidentiality
- confidentiality order
- Conflict of Interest
- Confusion
- Constitution
- consumer goods
- contract
- contributory infringement
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- copyright test
- corrections
- Costs
- counterfeit
- COVID-19
- CSP
- cybersecurity
- Damages
- Data
- Data Protection
- deadline
- defamation
- defences
- Delay to Market Entry
- descriptive
- Design Patents
- deviation
- digital infringement
- disclosure
- Discovery
- Distinctiveness
- Diversity
- division of powers
- divisionals
- DNA Patents
- domain names
- dominant feature
- Dosage Range
- Double Patenting
- doubtful cases
- Due Care
- Duty of Candor
- E-Commerce
- Early dismissal
- economics
- Employment
- errors
- essentiality of elements
- Ethics
- Europe
- Events
- Evidence
- examination quality
- examination statistics
- Examiner
- Expert Blinding
- Expert Evidence
- expiry
- Expungement
- extraterritoriality
- Fair Use
- federal circuit
- Federal Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- fees
- file wrapper
- Filing
- filing date
- filing fee
- financial services
- Food and Drug Regulations
- foreign issue estoppel
- forum selection
- fraud
- Free World Trust
- frivolous
- funding
- future infringement
- generics
- geographical indications
- Good Faith
- goods
- Government
- Grace Period
- grey marketing
- Hague
- Health Canada
- Hearsay
- Honest Contractual Performance
- ICSID
- Illegality
- Improver
- Indefiniteness
- Inducement
- Industrial Designs
- inherent distinctiveness
- Injunction
- Injunctions
- Innovation
- Innovative Drugs
- Insufficient Disclosure
- Intellectual Property
- intent
- Inter Partes Review
- interlocutory injunction
- Internet
- Internship
- intra vires
- Investors
- IP Lawyer
- IP Strategy
- IPIC
- IPO
- ISP
- IT patent
- ITC
- Jurisdiction
- Late fee
- Legal Retainer
- legal test
- Legislative Reform
- Liability
- Licensing
- life science
- limitation periods
- Litigation
- litigation funding agreement
- Madrid Protocol
- Maintenance Fee
- Marking Requirement
- materiality
- medical
- method
- Methods of Medical Treatment
- misleading
- motion
- Motion to dismiss
- Motion to strike
- NAFTA
- national phase entry
- Natural Health Product
- new evidence
- Non-Infringing Alternative
- Non-Practicing Entity
- notice of allegation
- notice to rectify
- Novelty
- obivous error
- Obviousness
- Official Marks
- On-Sale Bar
- ontario
- Overbreadth
- Ownership & Inventorship
- Passing Off
- Patent Act
- Patent Agents
- Patent Appeal Board
- Patent Application
- Patent Drafting
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Office
- patent office errors
- patent practicioner
- patent prosecution
- patent requirement
- Patent Rules
- Patent Strategy
- Patent Term Adjustment
- Patent Textbook
- Patent Trial and Appeal Board
- Patent Trolls
- patentability
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Patents
- PCT
- Pharmaceutical Patent
- Pharmaceutical Pricing
- PLT
- PM(NOC)
- PM(NOC) Damages
- PMPRB
- POSITA
- pride
- prior art
- Prior Disclosure
- prior use
- Priority
- Privilege
- procedure
- Product Specificity
- prohibited marks
- Promise Doctrine
- proprietor
- Prosecution
- Prosecution History
- protective order
- prothonotaries
- Provisional Patent
- public sale
- Public Servant
- Punitive Damages
- Recognition
- Records
- registration
- Reinstatement
- Reissue
- Remedies
- representation
- request for correction
- requisition
- responding
- review
- risk
- Royalties
- s. 27
- s. 45
- s. 53
- sale
- Scheduling
- Scholarship
- SCOTUS
- second person
- Secondary Infringement
- secondary meaning
- secret sale
- section 28
- Section 45
- section 50
- Section 52
- section 56
- section 7
- security
- Selection Patents
- Services
- settlement
- Site-Blocking Orders
- skilled person
- Software
- Software Copyright
- Software Patent
- Sound Prediction
- Specification
- sponsorship
- SRED
- Standard of Review
- Standard-Essential Patents
- standing
- standing to appeal
- Start-up
- Startups
- Statute of Monopolies
- stay
- Strategy
- Sufficiency
- Summary Judgment
- superior court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- surname
- Technology
- Telecommunications
- time frame
- TPP
- Trade Secrets
- Trade-Mark
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
- Trademarks Act
- treaty
- UK
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Use
- useful article
- USMCA
- USPTO
- Utility
- Validity
- Variant
- Varying records
- Velocity
- vexatious
- who's who legal
- Written Description
April 5, 2016
April 5, 2016
2015 FC 125 - The existing patent was invalid on the grounds of lack of utility for having made a promise of utility that could not be demonstrated nor soundly predicted, was anticipated by a previous patent of the applicant that claimed an overlapping dosage range, and was also therefore made obvious by the same previous patent.
March 28, 2016
March 28, 2016
PAB 1384 - If a pharmaceutical patent is construed to make a promise, then that promise must relate to how the invention will ultimately be used – not simply to the properties of the pharmaceutical itself.
March 3, 2015
March 3, 2015
Alcon Canada Inc v Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company, 2014 FC 149 - The Court examined in detail a number of experiments disclosed in the patent that were said to establish the claimed utility, but the experiments did not demonstrate or soundly predict utility for the broad ranges of molecular weight and chemical concentration claimed.
November 21, 2014
November 21, 2014
Apotex Inc v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2014 FCA 250 - The Court rejected Apotex’s sweeping argument that any given promise in the patent must be construed as overarching to all of the patent’s claims.
October 27, 2014
October 27, 2014
Dow Chemical Co v NOVA Chemicals Corp, 2014 FC 844 - The Federal Court found that NOVA Chemicals infringed Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705, owned by The Dow Chemical Company, by NOVA’s use of its “SURPASS” polyethylene product. Allegations of invalidity for lack of utility, claims broader than any invention made or disclosed, anticipation, obviousness, double patenting, and insufficiency of the specification were unsuccessful.
July 31, 2014
July 31, 2014
Allergan Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FC 567 - In terms of claim construction, this case shows the tension between construing claims based solely on the wording of the claims versus peering beyond the wording of the claims to distill an underlying invention.
October 18, 2013
October 18, 2013
F Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Commissioner of Patents, 2013 FC 1001. Background This is an application for an order pursuant to s. 20 of the […]
October 1, 2013
October 1, 2013
Re: Patent Application No. 2,248,228 [CD 1340] Background The Commissioner of Patents reviewed the decision of the PAB relating to patent application 2,248,228 entitled ‘METHOD OF […]
March 4, 2013
March 4, 2013
Teva Canada Limited v. Novartis AG, 2013 FC 141 Novartis is the owner of Canadian Patent No. 2,093,203 (the '203 Patent) covering imatinib, the active ingredient […]