Read more
Canada s Patent Act defines an invention as any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter . The sole statutory exclusion to patentability is mere scientific principle[s] or abstract theorem[s] . Yet despite such permissive drafting, Canadian courts, tribunals and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office have increasing excluded other types of subject matter from patentability. I argue that most of these decisions and practice notices are flawed and inconsistent with the language of Canada s Patent Act and its purpose. I also highlight the problem of extrapolating single judicial decisions (or a series of appeals) into even grander exclusions. By examining not only Canadian patent law, but that of the US and UK, I will show that the exclusion of the 'unholy triumvirate' (natural phenomena, laws of nature and abstract ideas) is the only rational baseline from which courts should exclude patentable subject matter (if not codified by statute).
About the author
Dr. Emir Crowne, BA, LLB, LLM, LLM, PhD is an Associate Professor with Tenure at the University of Windsor, Faculty of Law. He has published widely in several fields and is ranked in the top 1.5% of authors on the Social Science Research Network. Dr. Crowne is also a Canadian Barrister, Solicitor and Trade-mark Agent.
