Harvard College v. Commissioner of Patents (Can.), (2002) 296 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 21, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 296 N.R. 1 (SCC);2002 SCC 76

Harvard College v. Commr. of Patents (2002), 296 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. DE.007

Commissioner of Patents (appellant) v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (respondent) and Canadian Council of Churches, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Greenpeace Canada, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, Sierra Club of Canada, Animal Alliance of Canada, International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc. and Zoocheck Canada Inc. (interveners)

(No. 28155; 2002 SCC 76; 2002 CSC 76)

Indexed As: Harvard College v. Commissioner of Patents (Can.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

December 5, 2002.

Summary:

Harvard College applied to patent a mouse (i.e., an oncomouse), that was genetically altered to increase its susceptibility to cancer, which would make it useful for cancer research. The mice in issue con­tained a gene that had been artifi­cially intro­duced into the chromosomes of their ances­tors at the em­bryonic stage. The Com­missioner of Patents refused the patent appli­cation. The College appealed.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 146 F.T.R. 279, dismissed the appeal. Harvard College ap­pealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Isaac, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 290 N.R. 320, allowed the appeal and quashed the decisions of the Commissioner and Trial Division. The court remitted the matter to the Commissioner with a direction to grant a patent. The Commissioner appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Binnie, McLachlin, Major and Arbour, JJ., dissent­ing, allowed the appeal. The court held that Parliament did not intend higher life forms to be patentable (i.e., Parliament did not intend the definition of "invention" in s. 2 of the Patent Act, and in particular the words or categories of invention "manufacture" or "composition of matter," to encompass higher life forms such as the oncomouse).

Patents of Invention - Topic 8

General - Invention defined - Harvard College applied to patent a mouse that was genetically altered to increase its suscepti­bility to cancer, which would make it useful for cancer research (i.e., an onco­mouse) - The Commissioner of Patents refused the patent application, holding that the oncomouse was not a patentable "in­vention" within the meaning of s. 2 of the Patent Act - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Commissioner's decision was correct - The court stated that Parliament did not intend higher life forms to be patentable (i.e., Parliament did not intend the definition of "invention" in s. 2 of the Patent Act, and in particular the words or categories of invention "manufacture" or "composition of matter," to encompass higher life forms such as the oncomouse) -See paragraphs 153 to 206.

Patents of Invention - Topic 404

Registration - Patent Act v. Plant Breeders' Rights Act - In determining whether higher life forms were patentable under the Patent Act, the Supreme Court of Canada exam­ined the Plant Breeders' Rights Act - The Plant Breeders' Rights Act was passed subsequent to the Patent Act and provided for a form of property pro­tection for plant breeders - See paragraphs 60 to 63 and 188 to 196.

Patents of Invention - Topic 443

Registration - Statutory duties of Commis­sioner - Refusal of patents - Section 40 of the Patent Act provided that "whenever the Commissioner is satisfied that an applicant is not by law entitled to be granted a pat­ent, he shall refuse the application and, by registered letter addressed to the applicant or his registered agent, notify the applicant of the refusal and of the ground or reason therefor" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 40 did not give the Commis­sioner discretion to refuse a patent on the basis of public policy considerations inde­pendent of any express provision in the Act (i.e., the Commission's duty was non-discretionary in nature) - See paragraphs 143 to 152.

Patents of Invention - Topic 702

Application for grant - Items patentable (incl. genetically engin­eered life forms, plants, cells, etc.) - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that since 1982, the Com­missioner of Patents has accepted that lower life forms came within the defini­tions of "composition of matter' and "man­ufacture" (i.e., they were inventions) capable of being patented - The court, after holding that higher life forms were not patentable under the Patent Act, discussed whether the line between higher and lower life forms was defensible - The court stated that the unique concerns and issues raised by the patentability of plants and animals necessitated a parliamentary response - However, in the interim, the court saw no reason to alter the line drawn by the Patent Office - The court stated that the distinction between lower and higher life forms, although not explicit in the Act, was defensible on the basis of the common sense differences between the two - See paragraphs 197 to 206.

Patents of Invention - Topic 702

Application for grant - Items patentable (incl. genetically engin­eered life forms, plants, cells, etc.) - [See Patents of Inven­tion - Topic 8 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 883

Application for grant - Appeals or judicial review - Scope of appeal or standard of review - Harvard College applied to patent a mouse that was genetically altered to increase its susceptibility to cancer, which would make it useful for cancer research - The Commissioner of Patents refused the patent application - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the standard of review applicable to the Commissioner's decision in this case was correctness - The court stated that "while the decision to refuse to grant a patent may in some cases be accorded deference, the nature of the ques­tion is in this case determinative. In my view, the courts are as well placed as the Commissioner to decide whether the defi­nition of invention in s. 2 of the Patent Act encompasses higher life forms, since this question approaches a pure determination of law that has significant precedential value" - The court stated that this did not imply that decisions of the Commissioner would always be reviewed according to a correctness standard - See paragraphs 119, 147 to 152.

Words and Phrases

Composition of matter - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this phrase as it appeared in the definition of the word "invention" in s. 2 of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 - See paragraphs 153 to 196.

Words and Phrases

Invention - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "inven­tion" as it appeared in s. 2 of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 - See paragraphs 153 to 196.

Words and Phrases

Manufacture - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "manufacture" as it appeared in the defini­tion of the word "invention" in s. 2 of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 - See paragraphs 153 to 196.

Cases Noticed:

Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc. et al. (2002), 285 N.R. 267 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Continental Soya Co. v. Short Milling Co., [1942] S.C.R. 187, refd to. [para. 26].

Laboratoire Pentagone Ltée v. Parke, Davis & Co., [1968] S.C.R. 307, refd to. [para. 26].

Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1623; 97 N.R. 185; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 223; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 257, refd to. [paras. 27, 127].

Application of Abitibi Co., Re (1982), 62 C.P.R.(2d) 81 (Pat. App. Bd.), refd to. [paras. 31, 127].

General Electric Co.'s Application (Patent), Re, [1961] R.P.C. 21, refd to. [para. 31].

Application for Patent of Connaught Laboratories, Re (1982), 82 C.P.R.(2d) 32 (Pat. App. Bd. & Pat. Commr.), refd to. [para. 32].

Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980), 447 U.S. 303 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 36, 131].

Monsanto Canada Inc. et al. v. Schmeiser et al. (2002), 293 N.R. 340 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Somerset v. Stewart (1772), Lofft 1; 98 E.R. 499 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 54].

Bishop v. Télé-Métropole Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 467; 111 N.R. 376, refd to. [para. 55].

Bishop v. Stevens - see Bishop v. Télé-Métropole Inc.

Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 504; 35 N.R. 390, refd to. [para. 59].

Hinks & Son v. Safety Lighting Co. (1867), 4 Ch. D. 607, refd to. [para. 59].

Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1987] 3 F.C. 8; 77 N.R. 137 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 60, 127].

J.E.M. Ag Supply Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International (2001), 122 S. Ct. 593, refd to. [para. 63].

Commissioner of Patents v. Winthrop Chemical Co., [1948] S.C.R. 46, refd to. [para. 80].

Tennessee Eastman Co. et al. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1974] S.C.R. 111, refd to. [paras. 80, 126].

Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. (2002), 296 N.R. 130 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 87].

Commissioner of Patents v. Farbwerke Hoechst AG Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning, [1964] S.C.R. 49, refd to. [para. 126].

Lawson v. Commissioner of Patents (1970), 62 C.P.R. 101 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 126].

Application for Patent of Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. (1986), 11 C.P.R.(3d) 311 (Pat. App. Bd.), refd to. [para. 127].

Monsanto Co. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1108; 28 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Secretary of State for Home Department; Ex parte Al-Mehdawi, [1989] 1 All E.R. 777 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 129].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Mo­reau-Bérubé (2002), 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 148].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 148].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 148].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 148].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 154].

Hornblower v. Boulton (1799), 8 T.R. 95; 101 E.R. 1285 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 159].

Micro Chemicals Ltd. v. Smith, Kline & French Inter-American Corp., [1972] S.C.R. 506, refd to. [para. 174].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 178].

Daigle v. Tremblay, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; 102 N.R. 81; 27 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 179].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Northwest Area v. D.F.G., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 925; 219 N.R. 241; 121 Man.R.(2d) 241; 158 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 179].

Free World Trust v. Electro Santé Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1024; 263 N.R. 150; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 168, refd to. [para. 185].

Bergy, Coats and Malik, Re (1977), 195 U.S.P.Q. 344, refd to. [para. 202].

Statutes Noticed:

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1994), 25 I.I.C. 209, art. 27(2) [paras. 12, 90].

Assisted Human Reproduction Act (Bill C-13, October 9, 2002), generally [paras. 15, 71].

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886, 1908 and 1928), generally [para. 12].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [paras. 54, 177]; sect. 15 [para. 54].

International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention 1883), generally [para. 12].

European Patent Convention (1973), gen­erally [paras. 12, 34, 91].

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1992), Can. T.S. 1994 No. 2, art. 1709(2) [para. 90].

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 2 [paras. 6, 124]; sect. 27(1) [para. 124]; sect. 40 [paras. 11, 54, 124].

Plant Breeders' Rights Act, S.C. 1990, c. 20, generally [paras. 60, 188].

Universal Copyright Convention (1952), generally [para. 12].

World Trade Organization, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (1994), gen­erally [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arthur, C., The onco-mouse that didn't roar (1993), 138 New Scientist 4, generally [para. 24].

Bishop, John, Transgenic Mammals (1999), p. 7 [para. 22].

Canada, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Patenting of Higher Life Forms and Related Issues (Interim Report) (November 2001), p. vi [para. 65].

Canada, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Patenting of Higher Life Forms and Related Issues: Report to the Government of Canada Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee (June 2002), pp. 2 [para. 16]; 7 [para. 169]; 11 [para. 167]; 12 [para. 170].

Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 10-Year Review of Canada's Plant Breeders Rights Act (2002), generally [para. 195].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-15, An Act Respecting Plant Breeders' Rights, Issue No. 1 (October 11, 1989), p. 1115 [para. 194].

Canada, Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies (1993), generally [para. 113].

Canada, Statistics Canada, Biotechnology Use and Development - 1999 (March 2001), pp. 13 to 14 [para. 24]; 25 [para. 20].

Canada, The 1998 Canadian Biotechnology Strategy: An Ongoing Renewal Process (1998), generally [para. 113].

Caulfield, Timothy A., and Williams-Jones, Bryn, The Commercialization of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues (1999), p. 63 [para. 110].

Caulfield, Timothy A., Underwhelmed Hyperbole, Regulatory Policy and the Genetic Revolution (2000), 45 McGill L.J. 437, generally [para. 110].

Chong, Stephanie, The Relevancy of Ethi­cal Concerns in the Patenting of Life Forms (1993), 10 C.I.P.R. 189, generally [para. 145].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Eng. Ed. 2000), pp. 313 to 314 [para. 161].

Derzko, Nathalie M., Plant Breeders' Rights in Canada and Abroad: What are These Rights and How Much Must Society Pay For Them (1993-1994), 39 McGill L.J. 144, pp. 159 [para. 188]; 161 [para. 194].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [paras. 11, 154].

Ernst & Young, Seventh Annual European Life Sciences Report (2000), generally [para. 16].

Europe, Directive 98/44/EC of the Euro­pean Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, generally [para. 182].

Europe, European Patent Office Press Release (November 7, 2001), generally [para. 115].

Florencio, Patrick S., Genetics, Parenting and Children's Rights in the Twenty-First Century (2000), 45 McGill L.J. 527, p. 535 [para. 17].

Godson, Richard, A Practical Treatise on the Law of Patents for Inventions, and of Copyright in Literature, the Drama, Music, Engraving and Sculpture, and also in Ornamental and Useful Designs for the Purposes of Sale and Exhibition (2nd Ed. 1851), generally [para. 57].

Gold, E. Richard, Biomedical Patents and Ethics: A Canadian Solution (2000), 45 McGill L.J. 413, p. 423 [para. 25].

Gold, E. Richard, Body Parts: Property Rights and the Ownership of Human Biological Materials (1996), generally [para. 110].

Gold, E. Richard, Making Room: Reinterg­rating Basic Research, Health Policy, and Ethics Into Patent Law, generally [para. 110].

Hansard, House of Commons Debates - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Hayhurst, William L., Exclusive Rights in Relation to Living Things (1991), 6 I.P.J. 171, p. 177 [para. 98].

Heller, Michael A., and Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Can Patents Deter Innova­tion? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research (1998), 280 Science 698 [para. 111].

Knoppers, Bartha Maria, Reflections: The Challenge of Biotechnology and Public Policy (2000), 45 McGill L.J. 559, generally [para. 110].

Mooney, Pat Roy, The Impetus for and Potential of Alternative Mechanisms for the Protection of Biotechnology Innovations (March 2001), p. 13 [para. 110].

Rudolph, John R., A Study of Issues Relat­ing to the Patentability of Biotechnolog­ical Subject Matter (1996), generally [para. 145], pp. 5 [para. 167]; 11 to 12 [para. 50]; 35, note 74 [para. 185].

Schrecker, Ted, Ethical Issues Associated with the Patenting of Higher Life Forms (1997), pp. 25 [paras. 21, 24]; 26 [para. 21]; 44 [para. 173]; 62, 64, 65 [para. 176].

Vaver, David, Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-marks (1997), p. 126 [para. 61].

Counsel:

Graham R. Garton, Q.C., and F.B. Woyiwada, for the appellant, the Commissioner of Patents;

A. David Morrow, Steven B. Garland and Colin B. Ingram, for the respondent, the President and Fellows of Harvard College;

William J. Sammon, for the interverners, the Canadian Council of Churches and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;

Michelle Swenarchuk, Paul Muldoon and Theresa McClenaghan, for the interveners, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Greenpeace Canada, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration and the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy;

Jerry V. DeMarco, written submissions only for the intervener, the Sierra Club of Canada;

Clayton C. Ruby, Leslie Bisgould, written submissions only for the interveners the Animal Alliance of Canada, the International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc., and Zoocheck Canada Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Smart & Biggar, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Barnes, Sammon, Ottawa, Ontario, for the interveners Canadian Council of Churches and Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;

Canadian Environmental Law Association, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners Canadian Environmental Law Association, Greenpeace Canada, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, and Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy;

Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener Sierra Club of Canada;

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners Animal Alliance of Canada, International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc., and Zoocheck Canada Inc.

This appeal was heard on May 21, 2002, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on December 5, 2002, and including the fol­lowing opin­ions:

Binnie, J., dissenting (McLachlin, C.J.C., Major and Arbour, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 117;

Bastarache, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, and LeBel, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 118 to 207.