Promise Doctrine: Made to be Broken? Patent Law after AstraZeneca
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
Promise Doctrine: Made to be Broken? Patent Law after AstraZeneca
Issue: Volume 34
Author(s): Yael Bienenstock, Jonathan Silver and Andrew Bernstein
Abstract:
In AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2017 SCC 36, the Supreme Court of Canada finally examined, and overturned, the Promise Doctrine. The Promise Doctrine had gradually emerged as the standard by which the Federal Courts determined whether a patent met the utility requirement for patentability. In this article, we examine the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision and its new framework for utility, where the focus of the analysis is now the “subject-matter of the invention as claimed in the patent.” We argue that with a renewed focus on the claims, this new framework paves the way to a more harmonious approach to patent law in Canada – one where the same “invention” is assessed for all purposes, and the “patent bargain” reflects not what is written in the patent itself, but rather the conditions for patentability in the Patent Act. We also address how the Federal Courts have interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision since its release.
