Progressive Games Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Judge: Décary, Linden and Sexton, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2000), 265 N.R. 392 (FCA)
• Date: 09 November 2000

Progressive Games v. Commr. Patents (2000), 265 N.R. 392 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. NO.067

Progressive Games, Inc. (appellant) v. The Commissioner of Patents (respondent)

(A-814-99)

Indexed As: Progressive Games Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Linden and Sexton, JJ.A.

November 9, 2000.

Summary:

The Commissioner of Patents refused Progressive Games Inc.'s application for a patent on a poker game. Progressive ap­pealed.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 177 F.T.R. 241, dismissed the appeal. Progressive appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8

Invention - Defined - The Commissioner of Patents refused Progressive Games Inc.'s application for a patent on a mod­ified version of a five-card stud poker game which could be played in a casino or cardroom environment - Progressive ap­pealed - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the appeal - Progressive's changes in the method of playing a card game were not an "art" or "process" as found in the definition of "invention" at s. 2 of the Patent Act - The changes were not a contribution or addition to the cumulative wisdom on the subject game - The changes did not substantially modify the poker game as it existed nor did they create a new game - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Progressive's appeal.

Patents of Invention - Topic 702

Application for grant - General - Items patentable - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 8 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 801

Application for grant - Bars - General -[See Patents of Invention - Topic 8 ].

Cases Noticed:

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

Counsel:

Steven B. Garland and Kohji Suzuki, for the appellant;

F.B. Woyiwada, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 9, 2000, before Décary, Linden and Sexton, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Sexton, J.A., delivered the follow­ing reasons for judgment orally from the bench on that date.