Lawson v. Commissioner of Patents (1970), Patentable “art” / professional skills / abstract plans, A land subdivision layout (“champagne glass” lots), Not patentable — no physical change; merely a professional planning skill, An art must involve physical application; professional skills (surveying, lawyering, surgery) are not patentable, Schlumberger v. Commissioner of Patents (1981), Computer implemented inventions / mathematical formulas, Computer method for processing well logging data, Not patentable — only novel aspect was a mathematical formula, Using a computer does not make an abstract idea patentable; math = scientific principle (s. 27(8)), Progressive Games v. Commissioner of Patents (1999), Business methods / games / definition of “art”, Modified method of playing poker, Not patentable — no new knowledge; only rule changes, Establishes 3 part test for “art”: practical application, new/inventive application of knowledge, commercial usefulness, Amazon.com v. Canada (2011), Business methods / purposive construction / computer implemented inventions, One click online shopping method, Sent back for re examination; business methods not automatically excluded, Claims must be purposively construed; business methods can be patentable if not abstract; practical application ≠ automatic patentability, Tennessee Eastman v. Commissioner of Patents (1974), Methods of medical/surgical treatment, Surgical method using an old adhesive to bond living tissue, Not patentable — methods of medical treatment excluded, Methods of medical treatment are not patentable; cannot bypass restrictions on medical substances by claiming the method, Shell Oil v. Commissioner of Patents (1982), New use for old compounds / definition of “art” / discoveries, New plant growth regulating use for known compounds, Patentable — new use + practical embodiment, A new use for an old compound can be an art; a discovery becomes patentable when translated into practical application, Harvard College v. Canada (2002) (“Oncomouse”), Patentability of higher life forms / meaning of “manufacture” and “composition of matter”, Genetically engineered cancer susceptible mouse, Higher life forms not patentable, “Manufacture” and “composition of matter” do not include higher life forms; Parliament must decide otherwise, Case, Core Issue / Area of Patent Law, What Was Claimed, Court’s Key Holding, Principle Established

9.10 Review

by
Print
Embed

Leaderboard

Visual style

Options

Switch template

Continue editing: ?