Rédaction

Brevet au Canada – Attention aux fausses promesses

par

*Ce qu’il faut retenir:

Un brevet ne devrait contenir aucune phrase ou expression relative à un objectif, une promesse, un but, etc.

** Pour les praticiens en PI:

La décision Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. concerne des allégations par Mylan à l’effet que le brevet canadien No. 1,337,420 d’ AstraZeneca serait invalide, entre autre, pour manque d’utilité. (“lack of utility”). Plus précisemment, la question est à savoir i) si l’expression suivante constitue une promesse:

It is a particular object of the present invention to provide aromatase inhibitory compounds with fewer undesirable side effects than [AG].

ii) si c’est le cas, si la promesse a été remplie, iii) et si une promesse non remplie constitue un motif pour invalider un brevet.

Selon le juge Evans:

[33] I agree with the Judge that an examination of the patent as a whole supports the conclusion that, unlike the express claims of the patent, the object clause contains no more than a forward-looking aim of the invention. In my view, the fact that side effects are not mentioned elsewhere in the patent is telling.

Le juge p/r à l’interprétation du mot “provide”:

[31] Mylan counters these arguments by saying that the word “provide”, which appears in the object clause, is used elsewhere in the patent in connection with the claims of the patent. Thus, by stating that “it is a particular object of the invention to provide aromatase inhibitory compounds with fewer undesirable side effects than [AG]”, the object clause should, counsel argues, be interpreted as a promise.

[32] I do not agree. In my view, this microscopic approach to the construction of the provisions of a patent is misguided. The fact that such an ordinary word as “provide” is used in sentences containing the claims of the patent does not mean that when used in other sentences, it should be construed as connoting a promise of the patent.

 

US: Attention de ne pas prévoir un ordinateur à usage général sans en avoir les moyens

par

Pour les praticiens en PI

 

Dans Ergo Licensing v. CareFusion 303 (Fed. Cir. 2012) la Federal Circuit des États-Unis a déterminé:

If special programming is required for a general purpose computer to perform the corresponding claimed function, then the default rule requiring disclosure of an algorithm applies. It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.

Thus, the means-plus-function limitation has no corresponding structure in the specification because “there is no algorithm described in any form for the function of ‘controlling the adjusting means.'” As a result, the claim is invalid as indefinite.

 

 

Attention au préambule d’une revendication

par

*Ce qu’il faut retenir:

Aux États-Unis, le préambule d’une revendication peut être utilisé pour limiter la portée de celle-ci.

** Pour en savoir plus:

Dans American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 9/13/2010) , la cour du Federal Circuit a statué que le préambule pouvait être interprété comme étant limitatif dans les cas où il récitait de la structure ou une étape jugée essentiel…:

“Generally,” we have said, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” A preamble is not regarded as limiting, however, “when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” If the preamble “is reasonably susceptible to being construed to be merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim (and was not clearly added to overcome a [prior art] rejection), we do not construe it to be a separate limitation.” We have held that the preamble has no separate limiting effect if, for example, “the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”

***Pour les praticiens de la propriété intellectuelle

Continuer la lecture

Rédaction de revendications – Attention au préambule

par

Un article récent de Dennis Crouch’s Patently-O intitulé “Patent Prosecution Tips: Drafting Preambles” rappelle les dangers des préambules de revendications trop descriptifs.

Any extra word in a claim “can and will be used against you in a court of law.” Thus on the one hand, recitations in a detailed preamble may unduly limit the claim in unintended ways. By contrast, a generic preamble can never get you in trouble in that regard.

Même si l’article et le conseil précédent visent les États-Unis, je crois qu’ils peuvent convenir à la plupart des juridictions.