Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc.: A Landmark Patent Case Decided by the Supreme Court of Canada
The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc.: A Landmark Patent Case Decided by the Supreme Court of Canada
Issue: Volume 25 no 1
Author(s): Donald M. Cameron and Yuri Chumak
Abstract:
In Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi Synthelabo Canada Inc. et al., the Supreme Court of Canada provides the latest pronouncement on the law of anticipation and obviousness under Canadian patent law. Writing for the court, Justice Rothstein “refined” the test of anticipation, requiring the prior art both to disclose the invention and enable one to make it. The court adopted the U.K. Windsurfing four-part obviousness test, which includes a determination of the “inventive concept” of a claim. Borrowing from U.S. and U.K. jurisprudence, the court also held that, under certain circumstances, the “obvious to try” analysis should be part of the obviousness analysis. The court confirmed that selection patents (which claim one or more products from a previously disclosed group of products due to a superior or surprising quality that is particular to the selection) are not inherently invalid for double patenting.
