Archives pour 'Rédaction'

Brevet au Canada – Attention aux fausses promesses

mardi 15 mai 2012

*Ce qu’il faut retenir:

Un brevet ne devrait contenir aucune phrase ou expression relative à un objectif, une promesse, un but, etc.

** Pour les praticiens en PI:

La décision Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v. AstraZeneca Canada Inc.  concerne des allégations par Mylan à l’effet que le brevet canadien  No. 1,337,420 d’ AstraZeneca  serait invalide, entre autre, pour manque d’utilité. (« lack of utility »). Plus précisemment, la question est à savoir i) si l’expression suivante constitue une promesse:

It is a particular object of the present invention to provide aromatase inhibitory compounds with fewer undesirable side effects than [AG].

ii) si c’est le cas, si la promesse a été remplie, iii) et si une promesse non remplie constitue un motif pour invalider un brevet.

Selon le juge Evans:

 [33] I agree with the Judge that an examination of the patent as a whole supports the conclusion that, unlike the express claims of the patent, the object clause contains no more than a forward-looking aim of the invention. In my view, the fact that side effects are not mentioned elsewhere in the patent is telling.

Le juge p/r à l’interprétation du mot « provide »:

 [31]           Mylan counters these arguments by saying that the word “provide”, which appears in the object clause, is used elsewhere in the patent in connection with the claims of the patent. Thus, by stating that “it is a particular object of the invention to provide aromatase inhibitory compounds with fewer undesirable side effects than [AG]”, the object clause should, counsel argues, be interpreted as a promise.

[32]           I do not agree. In my view, this microscopic approach to the construction of the provisions of a patent is misguided. The fact that such an ordinary word as “provide” is used in sentences containing the claims of the patent does not mean that when used in other sentences, it should be construed as connoting a promise of the patent.

 

US: Attention de ne pas prévoir un ordinateur à usage général sans en avoir les moyens

mardi 3 avril 2012

Pour les praticiens en PI

 

Dans  Ergo Licensing v. CareFusion 303 (Fed. Cir. 2012) la Federal Circuit des États-Unis a déterminé:

If special programming is required for a general purpose computer to perform the corresponding claimed function, then the default rule requiring disclosure of an algorithm applies. It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.

Thus, the means-plus-function limitation has no corresponding structure in the specification because « there is no algorithm described in any form for the function of ‘controlling the adjusting means.' » As a result, the claim is invalid as indefinite.