More Problem Than Solution? Patent Subject-Matter Eligibility Following Choueifaty and CIPO’s 2020 Practice Notice
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
More Problem Than Solution? Patent Subject-Matter Eligibility Following Choueifaty and CIPO’s 2020 Practice Notice
Issue: Volume 36
Author(s): Mitchell Folk
Abstract:
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office’s (CIPO’s) use of a problem-solution approach unfairly denied patents to inventors of business methods, diagnostic methods, and computer-implemented inventions by failing to consider the inventor’s intentions when determining the essential elements of the invention. With important and practical elements excluded from consideration, the remaining elements were left vulnerable to being found patent-ineligible “abstract” subject matter. In Choueifaty, the Federal Court reiterated the Supreme Court of Canada’s holding in Free World Trust that an element is essential if the inventor intends it to be. Following Choueifaty, CIPO issued an updated practice notice. This article argues that CIPO has incorporated its previous error into its updated practice notice by recycling the problem-solution approach and establishing a physicality requirement. Thus, despite Choueifaty, patent applications that describe atypical, non-physical subject matter are nonetheless likely to experience the same fate as under the previous regime.
