Un bon exemple expliquant l’utilité de protéger ses idées par une forme de PI: l’histoire de Trivial Pursuit

Cette semaine, la Cour suprême de la Nouvelle-Écosse a rejeté la demande de David Wall qui prétendait qu’il était le vrai inventeur du jeu de société populaire Trivial Pursuit . Monsieur Wall prétendait avoir divulgué son idée à un des deux inventeurs reconnus du jeu lors d’un voyage en voiture alors que monsieur Wall faisait de l’autostop. La Cour a déterminé que l’histoire de Wall était peu crédible et qu’il n’y avait pas de preuve concluante (comme un enregistrement de droit de PI) documentant le fait qu’il était vraiment le premier inventeur.  Une lecture de la décision illustre bien aussi la stratégie de protection de PI qui était considérée pour le jeu.  Un brevet, un dessin industriel, un droit d’auteur et une marque étaient toutes des formes différentes de PI pouvant potentiellement s’appliquer comme forme de protection pour ce jeu.

One of the questions he was asked at the meeting was whether there was anything in the nature of intellectual property that should be protected. Werner took it upon himself to locate a patent firm in Ottawa and arranged for Haney and Abbott to attend at the offices of Julian Swann. Mr. Swann, on their behalf, contacted a law firm in the United States to conduct patent searches. As a result of these searches, it was determined the game board could not be patented, as there were already a number of patents granted for boards that had some similarity to the proposed Trivial Pursuit game board. There were also some similarities with the proposed playing pieces and the use of questions and answers. As a consequence, it was suggested they could not patent the board, the playing pieces or the cards on which the questions and answers appeared. They, nevertheless, decided to proceed. However, they applied for and were eventually successful in obtaining industrial design protection on the game board and a trademark for the name “Trivial Pursuit”. The only copyright they were able to obtain was for the “Rules of Play and Cards”.

-La décision de la Cour suprême de la Nouvelle-Écosse (190 pages!)

Un agent de brevets américain discipliné pour ses activités avec une compagnie de promotion d’inventions

La Cour d’appel du Circuit fédéral américain a récemment maintenu une décision du commissaire des brevets aux États-Unis qui disciplinait un agent de brevets américain associé avec la compagnie American Inventors Corporation liée à des pratiques non-éthiques dans la protection des intérêts de leurs clients.  Par exemple, cette compagnie déposait de nombreux dessins industriels pour des inventions qui étaient susceptibles de protection par brevets.

Voir la décision de la Cour pour plus de détails.

Les conséquences d’un dollar canadien fort: les frais de recherche au PCT au Canada en dollars américains augmenteront le 1er sept. 2007

Voir sur la feuille d’annexe du guide de déposant pour le Canada.

Augmentation en 2006 du nombre de demandes de brevets déposées en Europe par des déposants canadiens

L’OEB a récemment publié ses statistiques pour 2006.

 S’agissant des pays extra-européens, c’est surtout l’augmentation des demandes en provenance des Etats-Unis (34 800 demandes, + 2 060) et du Canada (1 950, + 170) qui a pesé dans la balance. La hausse notable du nombre de demandes de brevet d’origine asiatique est imputable principalement au Japon (22 140, + 680), à la Corée (4 595, + 742) et à la Chine (720, + 181).

Voir le site de l’OEB pour plus de détails.

Le PCT Newsletter de juin 2007 est disponible

Voir le lien de l’OMPI

La Cour d’appel fédérale du Canada réaffirme le test de Beloit mais accepte les facteurs additionnels du juge Hughes sur l’évaluation de la non-évidence d’une invention

Dans l’affaire Novopharm Limited v. Janssen-Ortho Inc., 2007 FCA 217, (June 7, 2007), un appel d’une déclaration de la validité d’un brevet, le juge Hughes en premìère instance avait présenté un certain nombre de facteurs plus précis permettant de mieux évaluer la validité d’un brevet par rapport à la non-évidence, comparé au test plus vague de Beloit.   La Cour d’appel a réitéré que le test de Beloit est encore et toujours valide, mais en même temps a déclaré que les facteurs du juge Hughes sont néanmoins utiles (”I emphasize that this list is a useful tool, but no more.”) pour analyser les faits applicables lors de l’évaluation de la non-évidence d’une invention.

Voici un extrait des conclusions de la Cour sur cette question:

Obviousness

[23] The accepted legal test for obviousness is stated as follows in the leading case of Beloit Canada Ltd. et al. v. Valmet OY (1986), 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289 (F.C.A.) at page 294, per Hugessen J.A.:

The classical touchstone for obviousness is the technician skilled in the art but having no scintilla of inventiveness or imagination; a paragon of deduction and dexterity, wholly devoid of intuition; a triumph of the left hemisphere over the right. The question to be asked is whether this mythical creature (the man in the Clapham omnibus of patent law) would, in the light of the state of the art and of common general knowledge as at the claimed date of invention, have come directly and without difficulty to the solution taught by the patent. It is a very difficult test to satisfy.

[24] The inquiry mandated by the Beloit test is factual and functional, and must be guided by expert evidence about the relevant skills of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, and the state of the art at the relevant time. The expert evidence must be carefully assessed as to its credibility and reliability. The classic warning from Beloit about hindsight must always be borne in mind (at page 295, per Hugessen J.A.):

Every invention is obvious after it has been made, and to no one more so than an expert in the field. Where the expert has been hired for the purpose of testifying, his infallible hindsight is even more suspect. It is so easy, once the teaching of a patent is known, to say, “I could have done that”; before the assertion can be given any weight, one must have a satisfactory answer to the question, “Why didn’t you?”

[25] There is no single factual question or a set of questions that will determine every case, or any particular case. Justice Hughes, at paragraph 113 of his reasons, proposes a list of factors to be considered when the validity of patent is challenged on the basis of obviousness. The list is apparently derived from a survey of numerous cases from Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. In my view, despite the continual debate as to whether the legal test for obviousness is the same in all of those countries, the list of factors proposed by Justice Hughes is helpful to guide the required factual inquiry, and as a framework for the factual analysis that must be undertaken. What follows is an edited version of his list:

Principal factors

1. The invention

What is in issue is the patent claim as construed by the Court.

 2. The hypothetical skilled person referred to in the Beloit quotation It is necessary to identify the skills possessed by the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art.

3. The body of knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art

The common knowledge of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art includes what the person may reasonably be expected to know and to be able to find out. The hypothetical skilled person is assumed to be reasonably diligent in keeping up with advances in the field to which the patent relates (Whirlpool at paragraph 74). The presumed knowledge of the hypothetical skilled person undergoes continuous evolution and growth. Not all knowledge is found in print form. On the other hand, not all knowledge that has been written down becomes part of the knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art is expected to know or find.

 4. The climate in the relevant field at the time the alleged invention was made The general state of the art includes not only knowledge and information but also attitudes, trends, prejudices and expectations.

5. The motivation in existence at the time the alleged invention to solve a recognized problem “Motivation” in this context may mean the reason why the claimed inventor made the claimed invention, or it may mean the reason why one might reasonably expect the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to come up with the claimed invention. If within the relevant field there is a specific problem that everyone in the field is trying to solve (a general motivation), it may be more likely that the solution, once found, required inventive ingenuity. On the other hand, if there is a problem that only the claimed inventor is trying to solve (a unique or personal motivation), and no one else has a reason to address that problem, it may be more likely that the solution required inventive ingenuity. However, if commonplace thought and techniques can come up with a solution, there may be a reduced possibility that the solution required inventive ingenuity.

6. The time and effort involved in the invention The length of time and expense involved in the invention may be indicators of inventive ingenuity, but they are not determinative because an invention may be the result of a lucky hit, or the uninventive application of routine techniques, however time consuming and expensive they may be. If the decisions made in arriving at the solution are few and commonplace, that may indicate that no inventive ingenuity was required to arrive at the solution. If the points for decision were many and choices abundant, there may be inventiveness in making the proper decisions and choices.

Secondary factorsThese factors may be relevant but generally bear less weight because they relate to facts arising after the date of the alleged invention.

7. Commercial success

Was the subject of the invention quickly and anxiously received by relevant consumers? This may reflect a fact that many persons were motivated to fill the commercial market, which may suggest inventive ingenuity. However, it may also reflect things other than inventive ingenuity such as marketing skills, market power and features other than the invention.

 8. Meritorious awards Awards directed to the alleged invention may be recognition that the appropriate community of persons skilled in the art believed that activity to be something of merit. That may or may not say anything about inventive ingenuity.

[26] Justice Hughes included as a secondary factor “subsequently recognized advantages”, referring to the advantages of the claimed invention that are perceived only after the date of the invention. Justice Hughes said that this factor is of limited usefulness in considering inventive ingenuity, and should be given little weight. I find it difficult to envisage a situation where a subsequently recognized advantage to a claimed invention would be of any assistance in determining whether inventive ingenuity was required to make it. I can imagine a situation where the commercial success of an invention is attributable to a subsequently recognized advantage, but that would not assist the inquiry as to inventive ingenuity. I recognize that it is impossible to imagine every possible situation, but given the current state of the jurisprudence I would be inclined to give this factor no weight except in the most extraordinary case.[27] I emphasize that this list is a useful tool, but no more. It is not a list of legal rules to be slavishly followed; nor is it an exhaustive list of the relevant factors. The task of the trial judge in each case is to determine, on the basis of the evidence, sound judgment and reason, the weight (if any) to be given to the listed factors and any additional factors that may be presented.

[28] I would also repeat the caution of Justice Hughes that catchphrases derived from this list or from the jurisprudence are not to be treated as though they are rules of law. I agree with the following comment of Justice Hughes from paragraph 113 of his reasons:

In this regard phrases such as “worth a try” and “directly and without difficulty” and “routine testing” have been used by the courts. It is not useful to use such phrases as they tend to work their way into expressions of law or statements of expert witnesses. Sachs L.J. deprecated the coining of such phrases in General Tire & Rubber Company v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company Limited, [1972] R.P.C. 195 at pages 211-12.

Il reste à voir si cette décision sera à nouveau portée en appel à la Cour suprême… Mais cela fournit pour l’instant des arguments additionnels pour plaider la non-évidence d’une invention dans un rapport d’examen ou au tribunal.

Article intéressant sur des considérations lors de la réutilisation d’instruments médicaux brevetés

Une bonne liste de 10 items à considérer lors de la réutilisation ou réparation d’un instrument médical breveté (selon la loi aux États-Unis)

 Voir l’article de IPFrontline.

Bon article-résumé du nouveau programme d’accélération d’examen de demande de brevet aux États-Unis

Un bon article qui résume bien les changements en vigueur depuis le 25 août 2006.

Voir l’article. Sur le site de IPFrontline.

Résumé du Juge Hughes des principes de la suffisance de la description dans une demande de brevet de sélection

Dans l’affaire Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited, 2007 FC 596, (June 5, 2007), le juge Hughes conclut une révision de la jurisprudence sur la suffisance de description pour des brevets de sélection (applicables surtout dans le domaine de la chimie - biochimie) avec les principes-résumés suivants à noter pour tout dossier qui impliquerait une telle question:

[139]      Thus, in considering the law as to sufficiency in regard to selection patents, the following may be concluded:

1.      A valid selection patent may be obtained where the invention lies in selecting a member or members from a previously disclosed group where the member or members selected possess a particular advantage not previously to be found or predicted in a large number of members of the class by a person skilled in the art.

2.      The advantage may also be a disadvantage to be avoided.

3.      The advantage must be clearly set out in the specification.  A statement that the selected group possesses advantages or lack of disadvantages is not in itself sufficient; the advantage must be plainly and fully set out in sufficient detail so as to enable a person skilled in the art to know and appreciate what they are.

Est-il correct d’envoyer des lettres d’information à des clients de votre compétiteur contrefacteur de votre invention avant d’aller en procès contre ce dernier?

Dans l’affaire M.K. Plastics Corporation v. Plasticair Inc., 2007 FC 574, (May 30, 2007), une affaire de contrefaçon de brevet, la défenderesse avait allégué que la demanderesse avait fait preuve de concurrence déloyale et de diffamation en informant les distributeurs de la défenderesse de la contrefaçon possible des produits qu’ils obtenaient de la défenderesse avant d’entamer des procédures judiciaires contre celle-ci.  Finalement la contrefaçon n’a pas été établie, mais la défenderesse n’a pas établi qu’elle avait subi des dommages suite à l’envoi de ces lettres. Donc, la demanderesse n’a pas été tenue responsable.  Cependant, cet exemple montre comment il faut faire attention dans sa stratégie d’envoi de lettres d’information à des clients de compétiteurs dans de telles situations afin d’éviter des conséquences fâcheuses par la suite, surtout si vos actions causent des dommages à votre compétiteur sans que votre position soit bien établie.

Voici des extraits pertinents de la décision:

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE

[125]      The defendant counterclaims against the plaintiff under section 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act for having made false and misleading statements tending to discredit the defendant’s business, wares and services.

[126]      The plaintiff wrote to the distributors of the defendant’s products, notifying of potential patent infringement of the ‘163 patent. The plaintiff wrote these letters before commencing an action for patent infringement, and prior to sending a “cease and desist” letter to the defendant. The defendant alleges that it has suffered damage as a result of the plaintiff’s acts.

[127]      The defendant submits that section 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act creates a statutory cause of action allowing for damages where a person is damaged by false or misleading statements by a competitor, irrespective of whether the statements were known to be false at the time, or were made maliciously.

[128]      The plaintiff submits that as the ‘163 patent was duly registered, the patent is presumed valid and the patentee is entitled to act on that basis (M & I Door Systems Ltd. v. Indoco Industrial  Door Co., [1989] 25 C.P.R. (3d) 477 (F.C.T.D.)).

[129]      It further submits that the tone of all of the letters was informative rather than threatening legal recourse against the recipients. Further, one letter is addressed to a person in Puerto Rico. Another letter is addressed to the to the defendant’s sales agent in Kansas, while a third one is addressed to the plaintiff’s own sales agent; none of these were the defendant’s clients or prospective clients.

[130]      The plaintiff submits that the first two letters were sent to parties outside of Canada, and therefore that the Trade-marks Act is inapplicable as the alleged contravening acts occurred extra-jurisdictionally. It also argues that there is no proof of a prejudice caused to the defendant, and as such the statements are not actionable.

[131]      I agree with the plaintiff that the first two letters sent to parties in Kansas and Puerto Rico are outside the scope of the Trade-marks Act and therefore do not provide grounds to support the cause of action alleged by the defendant in its counterclaim. I also find that the defendant has not established that the letter sent to the plaintiff’s sales agents caused it prejudice.

[132]      Consequently, I conclude that the defendant has not established the grounds necessary to make out its claim.

Une collection de brevets qui s’adressent uniquement à un public adulte et averti

Un blogue dont le titre parle du contenu… X-ratedpatents.com

Article sur l’utilisation de la PI pour contrer la délocalisation

Voir l’article de La Presse Affaires.

Article intéressant sur les questions de preuve électronique pour les procès en brevets au Canada

Voir l’article de Damien McCotter and Peter Wilcox.

Changements mineurs au Guide des déposants PCT pour les entrées en phase nationale au Canada suite aux changements des Règles sur les brevets

Voir les modifications sur le site suivant.