Search results
Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2] is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case concerning the patentability of higher life forms within the context of the Patent Act. [3] At issue was the patentability of the Harvard oncomouse, a mouse that had its genome genetically altered by a cancer-promoting gene . In a 5-4 split, the ...
This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.
While the Supreme Court of Canada did not make a ruling on the Commissioner’s decision to reject the claims (see Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 1989 CanLII 64 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1623), the majority of the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Commissioner’s rejection of these claims under s. 2 of the Act (Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents ...
Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2002 SCC 76 In 1985, the President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard) applied for a Canadian patent for technology for creating transgenic non-human mammals that are prone to cancer. The patent application particularly described a process for producing mice that have cancer-promoting genes (oncomice).
- Introduction
- Parallel Patents
- Conclusion
- References
Patentability of Biotech inventions
Biotechnology patents fall under the ambit of Utility patents. Utility patents are provided for invention or discovery of a new and useful product, manufacturing process, the composition of matter, or process, or new and useful improvement to an existing process. All the applications for patent must fulfil certain patentability criteria namely novelty or newness, inventive step or non-obviousness and utility or industrial usage. These criteria are common in most countries which are signatory...
Transgenic Animals
The present case pertains to the patentability of OncoMouse or Harvard Mouse which is a kind of transgenic animal developed by scientists of Harvard College in mid-1980s. It was not the first transgenic mouse to be developed for cancer research but the first one to be patented. Before deep-diving into the case, let us first understand what are transgenic animals? Transgenic Animals are those animals whose genome has been altered by transfer of a gene or genes from other species or breed for b...
Background
Harvard College scientists developed a process by which they were able to create transgenic animals by injecting cancer-promoting oncogene into fertilized animal eggs at the one cell development stage and implanting them into a female host animal. The offspring obtained from this female was tested for the presence or absence of the oncogene. Those in which the presence of oncogene was confirmed, were referred to as ‘founder’ mice and were mated again with unaltered mice. The offspring resulti...
The Harvard College filed identical patent applications in other countries for patenting the Oncomouse and evidently all the countries granted them patent in which the application was filed. 1. In the United States, the application was filed in 1984 and the patent was granted in the year 1988. The patent term expired on 12thApril, 2005. Ironically,...
In the year 1873, microbiologist Louis Pasteur patented a new yeast-making method at the French Patent Office. Today we know it as Pasteurisation and is one of the most commercially exploited patents in modern times. Many modern luxuries which are generally taken for granted are product of the advancement in the field of biotechnology that might no...
Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2019/index.doEuropean Patent Office (EPO) – can be accessed at https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts.htmlKlein Carly. (2019) ‘The Complications Around Patenting Biotechnology’, Labiotech.eu [online]. Available at https://www.labiotech.eu/in-depth/biotechnology-patents-intellectual-property/Mar 4, 2015 · In Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2002 SCC 76 (CanLII), [2002] 4 SCR 45 [Harvard College], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a genetically modified mouse was not a patentable invention under the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4.
People also ask
What did the Supreme Court decide in Canada's patent case?
When was Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of patents)?
When did the Commissioner of patents file an appeal?
Why did the Canadian patent examiner reject the product claims?
What happened in Canadian patent litigation in 2022?
Should a court defer to a commissioner's decision to grant a patent?
In the Supreme Court of Canada’s only patent decision of the year, the Court clarified the test for an accounting of profits. The Court upheld the largest monetary award ever granted in a Canadian patent case: a $645 million award to Dow for infringement by Nova of Dow’s patent for a type of polyethylene plastic.
