|
''Free World Trust v Électro Santé Inc'', () 2 S.C.R. 1024, 2000 SCC 66, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on patents, namely claim construction and the necessity to identify essential elements and non-essential elements. Along with the related decision, ''Camco v. Whirlpool'' (2001), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 129 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the doctrine of equivalents applied in the United States and adopted the doctrine of purposive construction, as originally applied by the United Kingdom House of Lords in ''Catnic v. Hill & Smith''. This was a landmark decision as it resolved the uncertainty in Canadian case law between the two doctrines. The Court also articulated the scope of protection provided by patents and the requirements for infringement. ==Background== Electro-magnetic therapeutic system is the English title of Canadian Patent 1,113,156 which was issued in 1981.〔The Government of Canada (GoC). ''(Canadian Patents Database: Help: Bibliographic and Text Data Fields )''. Department: Industry Canada. Agency: Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), Accessed 26-03-2008. :(Note: The "''Bibliographic and Text Data Fields''" explains that (54) is "English/French Titles", which means, "The name of the invention as provided by the applicant, or as translated by CIPO.")() :(Annotation: This is a help guide that explains The Canadian Patents Database. It explains accessibility, the Completeness of Date Fields, Patents, Patent Document Images, Language Considerations, International agreed Number for the Identification of (bibliographic) Data code (INID code), Patent Classifications, Text Data Fields, Administrative Status Definitions, Maintenance Fees Definitions, Payment History, Viewing Patent Document Images, Site Availability & Downloading Capabilities.)〕 The inventors Dr. Roland A. Drolet and Gaetan Charland, both from Canada, claimed that the device was an "electro-magnetic device for treating various types of rheumatic and arthritic diseases."〔() The invention related to a technique of bombarding human bodies with low-frequency electromagnetic waves and controlled the wave frequency using "circuit means". On November 24, 1981 Dr. Drolet and Mr. Charland received patent approval for their electro-magnetic therapeutic system.〔The Government of Canada (GoC). (CIPO - Patent - 1113156 : Electro-magnetic therapeutic system ). Department: Industry Canada. Agency: Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), Accessed 26-03-2008.〕 Their drawings, as portrayed within the Canadian patent, labeled the device "Ri - 2000 MAGNETOTHERAPY SYSTEM".〔The Government of Canada (Gov). (Canadian Patent Document: 1113156 Drawings, page ). Figure 3, p.2 of 8. Accessed 26-03-2008〕 By 1983, Dr. Drolet and Mr. Charland were issued another patent titled "''ELECTRO-MAGNETIC THERAPEUTIC SYSTEM AND METHOD''" which described the "''Ri - 2000''" in much further details and labeled the device as "''Ri -2000 RHUMARTtm-THERAPY SYSTEM''".〔The Government of Canada (Gov). (Canadian Patent Document: 1150361 Drawings, page ). Figure 7, p.7 of 16. Accessed 26-03-2008〕 This second patent maintained many similar characteristics to the 1981 patent. In fact both patents drew and labeled their devices with "''RODROL INSTRUMENTATION INC.''". ''Free World Trust'' was the rightful owner of the patents of invention numbered 1,113,156 (the “'156 patent”) and 1,150,361 (the “'361 patent”) issued in 1981 and 1983 respectively.〔''(Free World Trust V. Électro Santé Inc. : I. Facts 4 )'' No. 26406,. Supreme Court of Canada. Decision rendered 15 Dec. 2000. Accessed 29-03-2008〕 On December 15, 2000, in the case of ''Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.'', a decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on the infringement of patents 156 and 361.〔 The decision would create a legal precedent cited in at least 148 Canadian trials.〔''(CanLII: Search all CanLII Databases ).'' Canadian Legal Information Institute. (Lexum and Federations of Law Societies of Canada). Searched for term "Free world trust". Accessed 29-03-2008.〕 The case was even noted in Canada for setting out "the test for patent infringement" and "the principles of purposive claim construction".〔''("Free World Trust" : Google News Archives Search )''. Google 2008. Searched for term "Free World Trust". pp.1-2. Accessed 29-03-2008.〕〔Sotiriadis, Bob et all. ''(L’IMPACT D’UNE INTERPRÉTATION TÉLÉOLOGIQUE SUR DES RECOURS JUDICIAIRES EN MATIÈRE DE CONTREFAÇON DE BREVETS AU CANADA : 5.0 Les arrêts Whirpool et Free World Trust : les questions en jeu )''." Centre CDP Capital et LEGER ROBIC RICHARD, p.8. Accessed 30-03-2008.〕 The court transcripts explain that ''Électro Santé Inc.'', a competitor, developed similar technology that used a microcontroller rather than the circuits. Free World Trust sued Électro Santé for patent infringement on the ground that although the means may be different the end result of the inventions were the same. The Quebec Superior Court found that Électro Santé's invention was not novel and so their invention was invalidated. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision and found that there was no violation. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court ruling. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Free World Trust v Électro Santé Inc」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|