Insight

Supreme Court Rejects the 'Promise of the Patent,' Redefines Canada’s Patent Utility Requirement

The nine judges of the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the so-called “promise doctrine” was not part of Canadian patent law, and laid out a new approach to the utility requirement which substantially lowers the bar to proving usefulness of patented inventions.

'Promise of the Patent'
JS

Julie Desrosiers and Michael Shortt

July 13, 2017 10:41 AM

The nine judges of the Canada Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the so-called “promise doctrine” was not part of Canadian patent law, and laid out a new approach to the utility requirement which substantially lowers the bar to proving usefulness of patented inventions. This decision brings substantial change to Canada’s patent laws, and will certainly be welcomed by patentees, particularly in the pharmaceutical and life sciences sectors.

One of the authors, Julie Desrosiers, represented one of the interveners, FICP[1], in this important litigation.

Background

Canada’s Patent Act requires all patented inventions to be “useful,” but never states exactly how courts should assess usefulness. For a long time, this legislative silence wasn’t particularly important, since few patents were invalidated on the basis of utility. Starting in the mid-2000s however, utility attacks became much more frequent in Canada. This rise in utility attacks was driven by a number of factors, the most important being the emergence of the “promise of the patent” and the “enhanced disclosure requirement”.

The “promise of the patent” as applied by the Federal Court required that a patent’s usefulness be assessed by asking whether the patented invention was demonstrated or soundly predicted, at the Canadian filing date, which means that the invention could do all of the things which the patent specification promises that it can do. If the patent fails to deliver even one of the promised results, the unfulfilled promises would lead to the invalidity of the patent. The promise of the patent was frequently contrasted with the “scintilla of utility” approach, under which the invention need only provide a single non-trivial useful result.

The “enhanced disclosure requirement” as applied by the Federal Court, required that patentees disclose additional information or data in the patent specification where they rely on “sound predictions” of utility (as opposed to demonstrated utility through working prototypes). Under the enhanced disclosure requirement, if the patentee has access to studies which provide a reasonable scientific basis to believe that the patented invention has utility, those studies must be included in the patent document itself, and failure to do so means the patentee cannot rely on them to prove utility.

The AstraZeneca case focused mainly on the “promise of the patent,” since the trial judge invalidated the patent for lack of usefulness. In doing so, he found that the patented invention was useful as a treatment for excess stomach acid, but went on to hold that it lacked utility because it failed to meet a second promise contained in the patent (namely, that the drug would have more reliable results, with less variation in results between different patients). While the drug did have lower inter-individual variation, the inventors did not have enough information to soundly predict this property at the Canadian filing date.

The Supreme Court's Judgment

The Supreme Court quickly rejected the promise of the patent as the appropriate yardstick with which to measure utility. According to Justice Rowe, who wrote for the unanimous Court, the so-called “promise doctrine” had several major failings. First, in his view, it inappropriately referenced the disclosure portion of the patent when assessing validity of even unambiguous claims. For Justice Rowe, the claims should be the primary focus on any validity analysis. Since promises were typically found in the disclosure, this made the promise doctrine problematic. Second, he considered that holding patentees to promises made in the disclosure inappropriately conflated the utility requirement of section 2 with the sufficient disclosure requirement of section 27(3). Third, Justice Rowe pointed out that requiring an invention to fulfill every promise meant that inventions of undisputed usefulness—including the pharmaceutical compound at issue in this case—were nonetheless denied patent protection because they did not fulfill other, potentially secondary, promises of usefulness.

Finally, Justice Rowe acknowledged that it was important to discourage “over-promising” by inventors, who might be tempted claim greater benefits for their invention than the scientific evidence supports. However, he felt that these concerns could be addressed through other patentability requirements, such as overbreadth, sufficient disclosure under section 27(3) or the prohibition of willful misstatements under section 53.

Instead of the promise analysis, the Supreme Court set out what should be the approach to utility. This new approach proceeds in two steps:

The court must first construe the claims of the patent, in order to identify the “subject matter of the invention” as claimed in the patent.

The court must then ask whether that subject matter is useful. This question will be answered in the affirmative if the invention is “capable of a practical purpose” or can achieve “an actual result”. No particular level of utility is required at this stage, and a “mere scintilla of utility” will do. The only requirement is that the use identified in this stage be appropriately related to the subject-matter of the invention.[2] Only a single use must be shown, and failure of the patent to satisfy other uses will not prevent an invention from being considered useful.

The utility analysis is carried out as of the filing date, as opposed to some earlier or later date.[3] In applying the utility test, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the underlying purpose of the usefulness requirement, namely preventing the patenting of “fanciful, speculative, or inoperative” inventions.

Analysis

The Supreme Court’s decision in AstraZeneca has effectively hit the “reset” button on the utility requirement, wiping out a decade’s worth of Federal Court patent jurisprudence, and returning the utility requirement to a low bar. We expect that in the future, there will be very few utility arguments made by defendants in Canada, and even fewer of those arguments will be successful. As a result, validity disputes will likely return to the classic issues of novelty and obviousness.

While the Court’s new approach to utility has substantially simplified and clarified the applicable legal test, some questions remain to be worked out by subsequent cases. For example, how does one determine the “subject matter of the invention” and is this the same thing as the “inventive concept” referred to by the Supreme Court in its other recent patent cases?[4] Determining the subject matter of the invention will, in turn, establish the range of acceptable uses that can be relied on by the patentee.

Finally, the status of the enhanced disclosure requirement has yet to be fully resolved. The Supreme Court had previously cast doubt on the existence and propriety of the enhanced disclosure requirement, but these comments were in obiter, so the Federal Court continued in many cases to apply this rule.[5] The AstraZeneca case strongly suggests that there is no enhanced disclosure requirement since it repeatedly distinguishes utility from disclosure of utility.[6] However, the Court does not clearly address the issue, which may require further decisions to settle.

-----------------------

[1] The International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys.

[2] The Supreme Court stated that the “appropriate relation” requirement is to ensure that patentees do not propose trivial uses for their inventions, like using a machine as a paperweight or doorstop.

[3] The AstraZeneca case finally clarifies the applicable date for the utility analysis, which had been subject to contradictory statements by the Supreme Court, which occasionally referred to the priority date, rather than the filing date as being the relevant date (see e.g., Apotex v Wellcome Foundation, 2002 SCC 77 at paras 3, 56, 71–72).

[4] See e.g., Teva Canada v. Pfizer Canada, 2012 SCC 60; Apotex v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada, 2008 SCC 61.

[5] Teva Canada v. Pfizer Canada, 2012 SCC 60 at paras 37-43.

[6] See in particular paragraph 58.

Related Articles

Anna Inventing: The Importance of Diversity in Innovation


by Emily C. Peyser

A patent from 1887 by female inventor Anna Connelly not only revolutionized fire safety, but highlighted the need for diversity in innovation. Our world is facing big problems that need diverse voices at the table to find solutions that work for everyone. Building diverse teams and encouraging diversity in innovation is a beneficial step forward in resolving our collective challenges.

Diversity in Innovation and Technology

Learn How to Value Your Company's IP Portfolio as a Source of Income with Patent Scorecarding


by Troy A. Groetken

It’s imperative that intellectual property counsel, especially those responsible for the protection of innovation in the electrical, chemical, pharmaceutical and life-science arenas, regularly audit their company’s IP portfolio. Here’s the best way to do it.

Intellectual Property Scorecarding Benefits

What Entrepreneurs Should Know About Intellectual Property


by Todd Fichtenberg

With the growing rates of entrepreneurs and startups during 2020, applications for EINs and intellectual property protections should grow proportionately.

Business Owners And Intellectual Property

The State of Women Inventors


by Kate Rockwood and Amanda Hermans

What’s being done to improve the gender patent gap—and how attorneys can help.

How to Improve the Gender Patent Gap

Property Protectors


by Best Lawyers

Georg Schönherr and Thomas Adocker discuss the theft of trade secrets, patent infringement, and strategies to combat fake goods.

An Interview With Schwarz Schönherr Rechtsanw

Protect Your Intellectual Property From Patent Trolls


by Best Lawyers

Michael Ritscher discusses how he advises clients to better protect their trade secrets.

An Interview With Meyerlustenberger Lachenal

Famous Songs Unprotected by Copyright Could Mean Royalties for Some


by Michael B. Fein

A guide to navigating copyright claims on famous songs.

 Is the Happy Birthday Song

New European Unitary Patent Is Not-So-Wonderful


by Michael B. Fein

If the European Parliament and the 25 participating states were trying to emulate a U.S. patent and replace the present Balkanized system wherein each state has its own patent granting authority and courts handling patent litigation, it has failed miserably.

European Unitary Patent

Victory for The Slants and Redskins


by Carol Steinour Young and Emily Hart

On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court settled the issue of whether an offensive name—in this case, an Asian-American rock band called “The Slants”—can properly be registered as a trademark.

The Slants Legal Case Decoded

Gina Shishima, Austin, TX "Lawyer of the Year" for Patent Law


by Tess Congo

Highlighting Gina Shishima of Norton Rose Fulbright and her achievements in patent law.

Gina Shishima "LOTY"

Trending Articles

Introducing the 2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore


by Jennifer Verta

This year’s awards reflect the strength of the Best Lawyers network and its role in elevating legal talent worldwide.

2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore

Revealing the 2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria


by Jamilla Tabbara

These honors underscore the reach of the Best Lawyers network and its focus on top legal talent.

map of Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria

Effective Communication: A Conversation with Jefferson Fisher


by Jamilla Tabbara

The power of effective communication beyond the law.

 Image of Jefferson Fisher and Phillip Greer engaged in a conversation about effective communication

The 2025 Legal Outlook Survey Results Are In


by Jennifer Verta

Discover what Best Lawyers honorees see ahead for the legal industry.

Person standing at a crossroads with multiple intersecting paths and a signpost.

The Best Lawyers Network: Global Recognition with Long-term Value


by Jamilla Tabbara

Learn how Best Lawyers' peer-review process helps recognized lawyers attract more clients and referral opportunities.

Lawyers networking

Jefferson Fisher: The Secrets to Influential Legal Marketing


by Jennifer Verta

How lawyers can apply Jefferson Fisher’s communication and marketing strategies to build trust, attract clients and grow their practice.

Portrait of Jefferson Fisher a legal marketing expert

Is Your Law Firm’s Website Driving Clients Away?


by Jamilla Tabbara

Identify key website issues that may be affecting client engagement and retention.

Phone displaying 'This site cannot be reached' message

A Guide to Workers' Compensation Law for 2025 and Beyond


by Bryan Driscoll

A woman with a laptop screen reflected in her glasses

Best Lawyers Launches CMO Advisory Board


by Jamilla Tabbara

Strategic counsel from legal marketing’s most experienced voices.

Group photo of Best Lawyers CMO Advisory Board members

Common Law Firm Landing Page Problems to Address


by Jamilla Tabbara

Identify key issues on law firm landing pages to improve client engagement and conversion.

Laptop showing law firm landing page analytics

Changes in California Employment Law for 2025


by Laurie Villanueva

What employers need to know to ensure compliance in the coming year and beyond

A pair of hands holding a checklist featuring a generic profile picture and the state of California

New Employment Law Recognizes Extraordinary Stress Is Everyday Reality for NY Lawyers


by Bryan Driscoll

A stressed woman has her head resting on her hands above a laptop

Turn Visitors into Clients with Law Firm Website SEO That Converts


by Jamilla Tabbara

Learn how to create high-converting law firm landing pages that drive client engagement and lead generation.

Laptop screen displaying website tools to improve client conversion rates

Best Lawyers Introduces Smithy AI


by Jamilla Tabbara

Transforming legal content creation for attorneys and firms.

Start using Smithy AI, a content tool by Best Lawyers

SEO for Law Firms: Overcoming Common Challenges


by Jamilla Tabbara

Tackle common SEO challenges and take the next step with our guide, How to Make Your Law Firm Easier to Find Online.

Graphic image of a phone displaying SEO rankings, with positions 1, 2 and 3 on the screen

Medical Malpractice Reform Trends in Texas, Utah, Georgia and SC


by Bryan Driscoll

A fresh wave of medical malpractice reform is reshaping the law.

Medical Malpractice Reform Trends hed