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
The Pitfalls of "the Promise of the Patent"
Issue: Volume 29 no 1
Author(s): Fiona E. Legere
Abstract:
Recent jurisprudence has created a significant gap between the statutory requirements for the utility of the patent and the judicial requirements for the promise of the patent. Several high-profile decisions of the Federal Court of Canada and Federal Court of Appeal have invalidated patents for lack of utility because the patent did not fulfil the court’s interpretation of what the patent promised. Although these patents had a scintilla of utility, they were still invalid for lack of utility because they did not live up to the promise of the patent. This article addresses the development of the doctrine of utility and the promise of the patent, issues arising from the modern approach to evaluating the promise of the patent, and provides suggestions for patent drafters to eliminate any potential pitfalls created by the current patent law regime.
