Monsanto Canada Inc. et al. v. Schmeiser et al., (2004) 320 N.R. 201 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 320 N.R. 201 (SCC);2004 SCC 34;130 ACWS (3d) 1195;31 CPR (4th) 161;[2004] 1 SCR 902;320 NR 201;[2004] SCJ No 29 (QL);[2004] ACS no 29;239 DLR (4th) 271

Monsanto Can. Inc. v. Schmeiser (2004), 320 N.R. 201 (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: [2004] N.R. TBEd. MY.033

Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. (appellants) v. Monsanto Canada Inc. and Monsanto Company (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario, Canadian Canola Growers Association (CCGA), Ag West Biotech Inc., BIOTECanada, Canadian Seed Trade Association, Council of Canadians, Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, Sierra Club of Canada, National Farmers Union, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and International Centre for Technology Assessment (interveners)

(29437; 2004 SCC 34; 2004 CSC 34)

Indexed As: Monsanto Canada Inc. et al. v. Schmeiser et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.

May 21, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiffs registered a patent and devel­oped a product known as "Roundup Ready Ca­nola", a canola seed that was tolerant of glyphosate herbicides. The plaintiffs sued the defendants, alleging that the defendants in­fringed their patent by growing canola that contained the patented cell and gene without obtaining a licence or permission.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 202 F.T.R. 78, allowed the plaintiffs' action, holding that the plaintiffs' patent was valid and the de­fendants had infringed the patent. The court awarded injunctive relief and an accounting of profits. The defendants appealed the trial court's finding of patent infringement and the remedy. The plaintiffs cross-appealed, arguing that the damage award was too low.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 293 N.R. 340, dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal. The defendants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Arbour, J. dissenting in part (Iacobucci, Bastarache and LeBel, JJ., con­curring), allowed the appeal in part. The court set aside the award for an ac­count of profit, where the defend­ants ac­tu­al­ly earned no profit from the in­vention. The court however affirmed the order of the trial judge in all other respects.

Patents of Invention - Topic 702

Application for grant - Items patentable (incl. genetically engineered life forms, plants, cells, etc.) - The plaintiffs regis­tered a patent and developed a product known as "Roundup Ready Canola", a ge­net­ically engineered canola seed that was tolerant of glyphosate herbicides - The defendants argued that the subject matter claimed in the patent was unpatentable because it related to higher life forms (plants) - The Supreme Court of Canada re­jected this argument, concluding that the patent was valid - The court noted that the plaintiffs claim for protection was not for the genetically modified plant itself, but for the genes and the modified cells that made up the plant - See paragraphs 8 to 24.

Patents of Invention - Topic 2888

Infringement of patent - Acts constituting an infringement - Of particular patents - The plaintiffs registered a patent respecting "Roundup Ready Canola", a genetically en­gi­neered canola seed that was tolerant of glyphosate herbicides (in particular Round­up herbicide) - The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant farmer grew a crop in 1998 that was from his 1997 crop which he knew was from plants that were Roundup re­sistant - The plaintiffs sued the defen­dants for patent infringement, arguing that by collecting, saving and planting seeds containing the plaintiffs' patented gene and cell and then harvesting and sell­ing the resultant plants the defendants "used" that gene and cell within the mean­ing of s. 42 of the Patent Act - The Su­preme Court of Canada affirmed that the de­fendants "used" the protected invention (i.e., the patented gene and cell) and hence infringed the plaintiffs' patent - See para­graphs 28 to 97.

Patents of Invention - Topic 2964

Infringement of patent - Genetically engi­neered life forms, plants, cells, etc. - Plants and seeds - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 2888 ].

Statutes - Topic 1806

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of one version by reference to the other - In interpreting the word "use" in s. 42 of the Patent Act, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the word­ing of the French version of s. 42, which used the word "exploiter" - See para­graphs 31 and 36.

Words and Phrases

Use - The Supreme Court of Canada dis­cussed the word "use" within the meaning of s. 42 of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 - See paragraphs 31 to 58.

Cases Noticed:

Whirlpool et al. v. Camco Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 263 N.R. 88; 2000 SCC 67, refd to. [paras. 18, 119].

Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 504; 35 N.R. 390, refd to. [paras. 18, 122].

Harvard College v. Commissioner of Pat­ents, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45; 296 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 76, refd to. [paras. 21, 107].

Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Ltd. v. Well­come Foundation Ltd., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 153; 296 N.R. 130; 2002 SCC 77, refd to. [para. 24].

Free World Trust v. Electro Santé Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1024; 263 N.R. 150; 2000 SCC 66, refd to. [paras. 33, 122].

Lishman et al. v. Erom Roche Inc. et al. (1996), 111 F.T.R. 44; 68 C.P.R.(3d) 72 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Saccharin Corp. v. Anglo-Continental Chemical Works Ltd. (1900), 17 R.P.C. 307 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 44, 155].

Betts v. Neilson (1868), L.R. 3 Ch. App. 429, affd. (1871), L.R. 5 H.L. 1, refd to. [para. 45].

Dunlop Pneumatic Type Co. v. British & Colonial Motor Car Co. (1901), 18 R.P.C. 313 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

British United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Collier (Simon) Ltd. (1910), 27 R.P.C. 567 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 47, 158].

Stead v. Anderson (1847), 4 C.B. 806; 136 E.R. 724 (C.P.), refd to. [para. 49].

Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd. (1998), 25 F.S.R. 586 (Pat. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Illinois Tool Works Inc. et al. v. Cobra Anchors Co. (2002), 221 F.T.R. 161; 2002 FCT 829, refd to. [paras. 49, 157].

Computalog Ltd. v. Comtech Logging Ltd. (1992), 142 N.R. 216; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 77 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 49, 157].

Adair v. Young (1879), 12 Ch. D. 13 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 51, 145].

Pfizer Corp. v. Ministry of Health, [1965] A.C. 512 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 55, 158].

Kirin Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd., [2002] EWCA Civ. 1096 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 89, 127].

Application of Abitibi Co., Re (1982), 62 C.P.R.(2d) 81 (Pat. App. Bd.), refd to. [paras. 91, 114].

Lubrizol Corp. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (1996), 206 N.R. 136; 71 C.P.R.(3d) 26 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

Celanese International Corp. v. BP Chemi­cals Ltd. (1999), 6 R.P.C. 203 (Pat. Ct.), refd to. [para. 101].

Canson Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Boughton & Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; 131 N.R. 321; 6 B.C.A.C. 1; 13 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 101].

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. et al. v. FBI Foods Ltd. et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142; 235 N.R. 30; 117 B.C.A.C. 161; 191 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 101].

Collette v. Lasnier (1887), 13 S.C.R. 563, refd to. [para. 102].

Colonial Fastener Co. v. Lightning Fas­tener Co., [1937] S.C.R. 36, refd to. [para. 102].

Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Anglo-Ameri­can Trading Co. (1913), 30 R.P.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 110].

Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1623; 97 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 122].

Western Electric Co. v. Baldwin Interna­tional Radio of Canada, [1934] S.C.R. 570, refd to. [para. 124].

Needham v. Johnson and Co. (1884), 1 R.P.C. 49 (Aus. H.C.), refd to. [para. 124].

Amfac Foods Inc. et al. v. Irving Pulp and Paper Ltd. (1984), 80 C.P.R.(2d) 59 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 124].

B.V.D. Co. v. Canadian Calenses Ltd., [1936] S.C.R. 221, refd to. [para. 124].

Lubrizol Corp. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. (1992), 150 N.R. 207; 98 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

Commissioner of Patents v. Farbwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning, [1964] S.C.R. 49, refd to. [para. 132].

Shell Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 536; 44 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 132].

Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. Commis­sioner of Patents, [1982] 1 F.C. 845; 38 N.R. 299 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

Tennessee Eastman Co. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1974] S.C.R. 111, refd to. [para. 133].

State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc. (1998), 149 F.3d 1368 (F.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

Application of Boussac, Re (March 10, 1973), CIPO, Commissioner's Decision No. 143, refd to. [para. 133].

Application of Ijzerman, Re (July 4, 1975), CIPO, Commissioner's Decision No. 254, refd to. [para. 133].

Gale's Patent Application, Re, [1991] R.P.C. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

Application No. 995 for a Townhouse Building Design, Re (1979), 53 C.P.R.(2d) 211 (Pat. App. Bd.), refd to. [para. 133].

Hoffmann-Laroche (F.) & Co. v. Commis­sioner of Patents, [1955] S.C.R. 414, refd to. [para. 136].

R. v. American Optical Co. (1950), 11 Fox Pat. C. 62 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 146].

Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada (1969), 1 Ex. C.R. 529, affd. [1970] S.C.R. 833, refd to. [para. 149].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1994), 88 F.T.R. 260; 59 C.P.R.(3d) 133 (T.D.), revd. in part [1995] 2 F.C. 723; 180 N.R. 373 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 149].

Wellcome Foundation Ltd. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1991), 47 F.T.R. 81; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 155].

American Cyanamid Co. v. Frosst (Charles E.) & Co. (1965), 29 Fox Pat. C. 153 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 155].

British United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Gimson Shoe Machinery Co. (1928), 45 R.P.C. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Norton (H.N.) & Co. et al., [1996] R.P.C. 76; 189 N.R. 364 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 157].

Statutes Noticed:

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 42 [para. 30].

United Nations, Agreement on Trade-Re­lated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, generally [para. 137].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Patent Office, Manual of Patent Office Practice (1998), para. 16.05 [paras. 109, 113, 137].

Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Com­mittee, Patenting of Higher Life Forms and Related Issues: Report to the Government of Canada Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee (June 2002), p. 12 [para. 165].

Fox, Harold G., The Canadian Law and Practice Relating to Letters Patent for Inventions (4th Ed. 1969), pp. 184 [para. 125]; 349 [paras. 34, 140]; 383, 384 [para. 52].

Gold, E. Richard, and Adams, Wendy A., The Monsanto decision: The edge or the wedge (2001), 19 Nat. Biotechnol. 587, generally [para. 108].

Hughes, Roger T. et al., Hughes and Woodley on Patents (1984), p. 26 [para. 157].

Siebrasse, Norman, A Remedial Benefit-Based Approach to the Innocent-User Problem in the Patenting of Higher Life Forms (2004), 20 C.I.P.R. 79, generally [para. 102].

Terrell on the Law of Patents (15th Ed. 2000), paras. 8.08 [para. 157]; 8.09 [para. 158]; 8.10 [para. 157]; 8.24 [para. 48].

Vaver, David, Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-marks (1997), pp. 120 [para. 145]; 128 [para. 169]; 151 [paras. 36, 53]; 152 [para. 41].

Counsel:

Terry J. Zakreski, for the appellants;

Roger T. Hughes, Q.C., Arthur B. Renaud and L. E. Trent Horne, for the respon­dents;

Sara Blake and Ryan Collier, for the inter­vener the Attorney General of Ontario;

Mona G. Brown and Carena Roller, for the intervener the Canadian Canola Growers Association;

Written submissions only by Richard W. Danyliuk, for the intervener Ag-West Biotech Inc;

Anthony G. Creber and Henry S. Brown, Q.C., for the intervener BIOTECanada;

A. David Morrow and Colin B. Ingram, for the intervener the Canadian Seed Trade Association;

Steven Shrybman and Steven Barrett, for the interveners the Council of Canadians, the Action Group on Erosion, Tech­nol­ogy and Concentration, the Sierra Club of Canada, the National Farmers Union, the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and the Inter­national Centre for Technology Assess­ment.

Solicitors of Record:

Priel, Stevenson, Hood & Thornton, Sas­katoon, Saskatchewan, for the appellants;

Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents;

Ministry of the Attorney General of On­tario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario;

McCarthy & Brown, Carman, Manitoba, for the intervener the Canadian Canola Growers Association;

McDougall Gauley, Saskatoon, Saskatche­wan, for the intervener Ag-West Biotech Inc.;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa, On­tario, for the intervener BIOTECan­ada;

Smart & Biggar, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener the Canadian Seed Trade As­so­ciation;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners the Council of Cana­dians, the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, the Sierra Club of Canada, the National Farmers Union, the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and the International Centre for Technology Assessment.

This appeal was heard on January 20, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on May 21, 2004, when the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, C.J.C., and Fish, J. (Major, Binnie and Deschamps, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 106;

Arbour, J. (Iacobucci, Bastarache and LeBel, JJ., concurring), dissenting in part - see paragraphs 107 to 171.