*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.

 

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.