Full bibliography

In Canada, like the USA, exclusions to patentable subject matter are driven primarily by the courts. Two recent decisions by the Canadian Patent Appeal Board (one on patentability of business methods and the other on the patentability of methods of medical treatment) have highlighted the inherent difficulty of crafting exclusions to patentable subject matter grounded not on legislative intent but on judicial activism.Courts, patent examiners, and the patent appeal board should be slow to deny patents where their subject matter is considered ineligible; rather patent applications should be assessed by the traditional criteria of patentability (namely, novelty, inventiveness, and utility). If the subject matter can be made to fit within the definition of ‘invention’ (even if slightly uncomfortably), the courts should aim to ‘breathe life’ into the bare, sometimes dated, words of the patent statute. Since the patent statutes are drafted with a view to the unforeseen, any judicial interpretation of the word ‘invention’ must give deference to this vision. A theory of subject-matter eligibility is also proposed.