The Supreme Court's Sanofi Decision: Three Years Later
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 Supreme Court's Sanofi Decision: Three Years Later
Issue: Volume 27 no 2
Author(s): Patrick S. Smith and Donald M. Cameron
Abstract:
In 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc. restated the test for anticipation under Canadian patent law to expressly include enablement. Sanofi also provided an analytical approach for obviousness and provided the option of using the “obvious to try” test in areas where inventions are often won by experimentation. This article reviews the most important cases from 2008 to 2011 that have applied the Sanofi decision.
