• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

Industry Questions Canadian Courts’ Overturning Of Patents

31/10/2013 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

By Caitlin McGivern for Intellectual Property Watch

In a new blog post, Michelle Wein, research analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, criticises a series of decisions by the Canadian courts overturning certain patents based on a re-evaluation of the usefulness criterion that a patent must meet. She argues that this trend reduces the effectiveness of the international patent system, inhibits innovation and reduces the distribution of life-saving medications.

The post, accessible here, discusses how the courts’ recent examination of the “promise doctrine” has encouraged the notion that for a patent to be valid, it must meet heightened requirements for usefulness. The promise doctrine holds that a patent must not only be useful for some purpose (the standard in the United States and Europe), but it must also deliver exactly the purpose promised in the patent filing. Wein states that this establishes “an impractical evidentiary burden,” since at the time of filing, the specific usefulness of a patent cannot be determined.

Wein argues that this precedent set by the Canadian courts will have an adverse effect not only on the intellectual property system in Canada, but around the world. She points to pharmaceutical companies’ lost sales following on from the termination of patents, and suggests that this will reduce incentive to innovate and develop new drugs, and poses a risk to patients relying on the development of new medicines.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Creative Commons License"Industry Questions Canadian Courts’ Overturning Of Patents" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: IP-Watch Briefs, IP Policies, Language, Themes, Venues, English, Health & IP, IP Law, Innovation/ R&D, Lobbying, Patents/Designs/Trade Secrets, WTO/TRIPS

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.