Generally, inventor owns the right There may be cases where employer owns rights by contract with an employee inventor US & employee owns right, but employer has non-exclusive license to work the patent – EU mandatory employee compensation for patent – Canada nothing specific about employer-employee in the PA so left to contractual rights (CL – employee is entitled to the benefits) – Ex University research? Determine using the scope of employment” – “within – professor using university equipment vs using their own comp as hobby What about a freelancer and not employee? No rights to employer and the inventiveness belongs to freelancer unless an implicit/explicit agreement exist Government ownership s.20 – Governments and crown corporations can own & acquire patents as well Federal gov owns inventions by federal employees within the of their employment – duties Gov are not required to compensate inventor. But they can make discretionary award or waive its ownership right OF s 45: patent rights are granted for a term of 20 years from the filing date of the patent SCOPE OF PATENT The rights are limited by the scope of claim in the patent The have to set out and explicitly” what the scope is “distinctly But, the reality is that patents are drafted quite vaguely to maximize the scope of patent rights, or due to difficulty in describing the invention Purposive construction what this means is that claim should be claimed purposively, and allow – judges to claim differently from what the literal of the patent claim provide (Whirlpool) Catnic case demonstrate that is what a skilled architect, reading the patent at the date – of publication, would have understood it to be [patent claims should be constructed in a purposive approach] FACTS & HOLDING Claim by C that W had double patented certain technology in their washer machines. Court found the patents were all valid (no double patenting) and that purposive approach was appropriate. Whether the patent was invalid as double patenting. Whether construction” was proper approach for patent claim construction. “purposive RULE Claims should be constructed in a purposive manner (in light of the claim, looking at the purpose of the inventionfrom literal construction)
Generally, inventor owns the right There may be cases where employer owns rights by contract with an employee inventor US & – employee owns right, but employer has non-exclusive license to work the patent EU – mandatory employee compensation for patent Canada – nothing specific about employer-employee in the PA so left to contractual rights (CL – employee is entitled to the benefits) Ex – University research? Determine using “within the scope of employment” – professor using university equipment vs using their own comp as hobby What about a freelancer and not employee? No rights to employer and the inventiveness belongs to freelancer unless an implicit/explicit agreement exist Government ownership – s.20 Governments and crown corporations can own & acquire patents as well Federal gov – owns inventions by federal employees within the of their employment duties Gov are not required to compensate inventor. But they can make discretionary award or waive its ownership right OF s 45: patent rights are granted for a term of 20 years from the filing date of the patent SCOPE OF PATENT The rights are limited by the scope of claim in the patent The have to set out “distinctly and explicitly” what the scope is But, the reality is that patents are drafted quite vaguely to maximize the scope of patent rights, or due to difficulty in describing the invention Purposive construction – what this means is that claim should be claimed purposively, and allow judges to claim differently from what the literal of the patent claim provide (Whirlpool) Catnic case – demonstrate that is what a skilled architect, reading the patent at the date of publication, would have understood it to be [patent claims should be constructed in a purposive approach] FACTS & HOLDING Claim by C that W had double patented certain technology in their washer machines. Court found the patents were all valid (no double patenting) and that purposive approach was appropriate. Whether the patent was invalid as double patenting. Whether “purposive construction” was proper approach for patent claim construction. RULE Claims should be constructed in a purposive manner (in light of the claim, looking at the purpose of the inventionfrom literal construction)
IP-CAN.docx