Apotex Inc. v.
copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis
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."
Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index
Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index
JurisDiction Home Page