Case Comment

Apotex Inc. v.
Hoffman La-Roche Ltd.

citation(s): (1987), 15 C.P.R. (3d) 217 (F.C.T.D. per Reed. J.), affirmed (1989), 24 C.P.R. (3d) 289 (F.C.A.)

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At p. 299

"This wording, as it seems to me, can be read in at least two ways. ... The claim is thus ambiguous and in either case it is invalid as well, in the first as not being sufficiently explicit to inform the reader as to what is within and what is not within the claim, as required by s-s. 36(2) of the Patent Act, in the second in claiming more than the new use the inventor discovered for the known combination."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index

JurisDiction Home Page