Law Commons^™

Not So Simple After All: A Comment On Ravndahl V. Saskatchewan, Dianne Pothier

Dianne Pothier Collection

Ravndahl became entitled to a survivor's pension under workers' compensation legislation upon the death of her husband in 1975, and disentitled upon remarriage in 1984. In 2000 she filed a statement of claim alleging the disentitlement constituted a section 15 Charter breach. The Saskatchewan government brought a pre-trial motion claiming the action was barred because of a six-year statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court of Canada assumed without deciding that the Charter applied. The author contends the Court should have affirmatively concluded that the Charter applies, on the basis that the claim is founded on the claimant's on-going status as …

Demythologizing Phosita: Applying The Non-Obviousness Requirement Under Canadian Patent Law To Keep Knowledge In The Public Domain & Foster Innovation, Matthew Herder

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The Supreme Court of Canada recently revised the doctrine of non-obviousness in a pharmaceutical “selection patent” case, Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc. Although cognizant of changes to the same doctrine in the United States and the United Kingdom, a critical flaw in how the doctrine is being applied in Canada escaped the Court’s attention. Using content analysis methodology, this article shows that Canadian courts frequently fail to characterize the “person having ordinary skill in the art” (PHOSITA) for the purpose of the obviousness inquiry. The article argues that this surprisingly common analytical mistake betrays a deep misunderstanding of innovation, …