Comments on: Court To Boston Scientific: Your Patent Is Invalid if We Say It Is http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/28/court-to-boston-scientific-your-patent-is-invalid-if-we-say-it-is/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=court-to-boston-scientific-your-patent-is-invalid-if-we-say-it-is Freshly Brewed Bio/Pharma Chat. Served Up Daily. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:57:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David J. French http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/28/court-to-boston-scientific-your-patent-is-invalid-if-we-say-it-is/comment-page-1/#comment-65447 David J. French Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:03:50 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/28/court-to-boston-scientific-your-patent-is-invalid-if-we-say-it-is/#comment-65447 David French writes: In Canada, a patent stands for what it is on its face. There can be no estoppel based on general statements made to the public, at least on the basis of patent law so far. A dedication of the patent to the public or a declaration of a terminal disclaimer may qualify as an exception. The Canadian courts want to avoid complicating patent cases with facts arising outside of the patent document itself and the prior art. There is no file wrapper estoppel in Canada. "Keep it simple" is the policy. Is this fair? Well, at least it simplifies litigation. David French writes:

In Canada, a patent stands for what it is on its face. There can be no estoppel based on general statements made to the public, at least on the basis of patent law so far.

A dedication of the patent to the public or a declaration of a terminal disclaimer may qualify as an exception.

The Canadian courts want to avoid complicating patent cases with facts arising outside of the patent document itself and the prior art. There is no file wrapper estoppel in Canada. “Keep it simple” is the policy.

Is this fair? Well, at least it simplifies litigation.

]]> By: Ryan http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/28/court-to-boston-scientific-your-patent-is-invalid-if-we-say-it-is/comment-page-1/#comment-65444 Ryan Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:51:14 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/28/court-to-boston-scientific-your-patent-is-invalid-if-we-say-it-is/#comment-65444 I'd like to know what other readers think about Cordis's disavowal of its public statements that tended to establish infringement, i.e., that Cypher was not thrombogenic. Smells bad to me. Like a patent, their statements are supposed to provide a type of notice to the public, no? I’d like to know what other readers think about Cordis’s disavowal of its public statements that tended to establish infringement, i.e., that Cypher was not thrombogenic. Smells bad to me. Like a patent, their statements are supposed to provide a type of notice to the public, no?

]]>