Brevet au Canada – Attention aux fausses promesses

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.

 

Commentaires désactivés.