Haunted by the Spirit of the Invention: Recent Examination Guidelines from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for Medical Diagnostics Channel the Spectre of Contribution Analysis
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
Haunted by the Spirit of the Invention: Recent Examination Guidelines from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for Medical Diagnostics Channel the Spectre of Contribution Analysis
Issue: Volume 32
Author(s): Graeme R.B. Boocock
Abstract:
Recent guidelines issued by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for the examination of medical diagnostic claims are contrary to jurisprudence. The guidelines instruct examiners to actively vary the literal wording of the claims under the aegis of a supposedly “purposive” approach that is itself at variance with the tenets of purposive construction. The guidelines indicate that examiners should identify an underlying technical problem and cast aside as purportedly “non-essential” any claim features deemed superfluous to its solution, or part of the common general knowledge. The “essential” features, thus distilled, are assessed for subject matter eligibility. The result is that diagnostic claims are now routinely objected to for being mere correlations, and are absurdly said to have no practical application. The approach is contrary to the Free World Trust, Whirlpool, and Shell Oil decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, and to industry realities. The outcome is identical to contribution analysis.
The User-Generated Content Exception: Moving Away from a Non-Commercial Requirement
0
$4.99 + tax
What Qualifies as Joint Authorship of Software?
0
$4.99 + tax
Le 50e anniversaire du régime allemand de copie privée : Les difficultés des exceptions rémunérée
0
$4.99 + tax
Plant Breeders’ Rights in Canada
0
$4.99 + tax
Haunted by the Spirit of the Invention: Recent Examination Guidelines from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for Medical Diagnostics Channel the Spectre of Contribution Analysis
0
$4.99 + tax
Utility: Unravelling the Real Differences with Our Closest Trading Partner
0
$4.99 + tax
Process for Choosing and Vetting an Expert Witness in Patent Cases