Table Of Content

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: COPYRIGHT, TRADE-MARKS, PATENTS (298HF) 2000/2001 VOLUME 3: PATENTS Abraham Drassinower* Faculty of Law University of Toronto f ) Storage *With the assistance of Paul Lamarre These materials are solely for the classroom use of students in the Faculty of Law, KE ^ University of Toronto 2798.5 .D73 2000 V.3 c-1 V_J AUG 2 2 2C00 FACULH Of Ifti INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: COPYRIGHT, TRADE-MARKS, PATENTS (298HF) 2000/2001 VOLUME 3: PATENTS Abraham Drassinower* Faculty of Law University of Toronto *With the assistance of Paul Lamarre These materials are solely for the classroom use of students in the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Toronto https://archive.org/details/intellectualprop03dras_2 Volume 3 Patents Table of Contents I. Introduction Gordon F. Henderson, “An Introduction to Patent Law,” in Gordon F. Henderson, ed.. Patent law of Canada (Scarborough: Carswell, 1994), at 1-14.1 II. Presumption of Validity Diversified Products Corp. v. Tye-Sil Corp. (1991), 35 C.P.R. (3d) 350 (F.C.A.).9 III. Novelty Xerox of Canada Ltd. et al. v. IBM Canada Ltd. (1977), 33 C.P.R. (2d) 24 (F.C.A.).11 Reeves Brothers Inc. v. Toronto Quilting & Embroidery Ltd. (1978), 43 C.P.R. (2d) 145 (F.C.T.D.).18 Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy (1986), 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289 (F.C.A.).21 J. M. Voith GmbHv. Beloit Corp. (1991), 36 C.P.R. (3d) 322 (F.C.A.). 26 Diversified Products Corp. v. Tye-Sil Corp. (1991), 35 C.P.R. (3d) 350 (F.C.A.).35 IV. Obviousness/Inventive Step Farbwerke Hoeschtv. Halocarbon (1979), 42 C.P.R. (2d) 145 (S.C.C.).40 Beecham Canada Ltd. et al. v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1982), 61 C.P.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.).47 Beloit Canada Ltd. et al. v. Valmet Oy (1986), 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289 (F.C.A.).48 Diversified Products Corp. v. Tye-Sil Corp. (1991), 35 C.P.R. (3d) 350 (F.C.A.).51 General Tire v. Firestone, [1972] R.P.C. 457 (C.A.).57 Procter & Gamble Co. et al. v. Kimberley-Clark of Canada Ltd. (1991), 40 C.P.R. (3d) 1 (F.C.T.D.).74 Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd., [1985] R.P.C. 59 (C.A.).76 Windsurfing International Inc. et al. v. Trilantic (now Bic Sports Inc.) (1986), 8 C.P.R. (3d) 241 (F.C.A.).84 Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., [1993] F.C.J. No. 135 (F.C.A.).88 V. utility Xv. Commissioner of Patents {\9%\), 59 C.P.R. (2d) 7 (F.C.A.).103 Minerals Separation North American Corp. v. Noranda Mines Ltd. (1952), 15 C.P.R. 133 (J.C.P.C.).105 Burton Parsons Chemicals, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 555 (S.C.C.).109 TRW Inc. V. Walb ar of Canada Inc., [1991] F.C.J. No. 1075 (F.C.A.).115 VI. Subject Matter Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents 14 C.P.R. (3d) 491 (F.C.A.).117 Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) (1989), 25 C.P.R. 3d 257 (S.C.C.).120 President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1213 (F.C.A.)...128 Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents {\9%T), 56 C.P.R. (2d) 204 (F.C.A.).158 Tennessee Eastman Co. et al. v. Commissioner of Patents (1973), 8 C.P.R. (2d) 202 (S.C.C.).160 VII. Sufficiency of the Patent Specification ConsolboardInc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 504 (S.C.C.).166 Beecham Canada Ltd. et al. v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1982), 61 C.P.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.).174 VIII. Infringement McPhar Engineering Co. v. Sharpe Instruments (1960). 35 C.P.R. 105 (Ex. Q.).183 Catnic Components Ltd v. Hill and Smith Ltd., [1982] R.P.C. 183 (H.L.).198 Beecham Canada Ltd. et al. v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1982), 61 C.P.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.).202 O’Hara Manufacturing Ltd. Eli Lilly & Co. (1989), 26 C.P.R (3d) 1 (F.C.A.).205 Mobil Oil Corp. et al. v. Hercules Canada Inc. (1995), 63 C.P.R. (3d) 473 (F.C.A.).210 Windsurfing International Inc. et al. v. Trilantic (now Bic Sports Inc.) (1986), 8 C.P.R. (3d) 241 (F.C.A.), 213