|
Thursday November 22, 2012 |
The House of Commons Committee on Industry, Science and Technology has
spent the past few months hearing from a myriad of companies on the
Canadian intellectual property system. With few public interest groups
invited to appear, one of the primary themes has been the call for more
extensive patent protections, as witnesses link the patent system to
innovation and economic growth.
While policies that purport to help the economy unsurprisingly generate
considerable support, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the Supreme Court of Canada recently provided a
powerful reminder about the true purpose of patent law in a decision
involving Pfizer's patent for Viagra, the well-known erectile
dysfunction medication. Teva Pharmaceuticals, one of the world's leading
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, had lost successive challenges
against the Viagra patent, but managed to pull out a win when it
mattered most. The decision has already had considerable fallout, as Pfizer has asked for a rehearing, had the patent confirmed as invalid in a Federal Court case with Apotex, and dropped its retail price to match the generic pricing.
patents, pfizer, teva, viagra Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday November 22, 2012 |
|
View
|
|
|
Thursday November 22, 2012 |
Appeared in the Toronto Star on November 18, 2012 as Supreme Court Serves Stunning Reminder of the Patent Bargain
The House of Commons Committee on Industry, Science and Technology has
spent the past few months hearing from a myriad of companies on the
Canadian intellectual property system. With few public interest groups
invited to appear, one of the primary themes has been the call for more
extensive patent protections, as witnesses link the patent system to
innovation and economic growth.
While policies that purport to help the economy unsurprisingly generate
considerable support, the Supreme Court of Canada recently provided a
powerful reminder about the true purpose of patent law in a decision
involving Pfizer's patent for Viagra, the well-known erectile
dysfunction medication. Teva Pharmaceuticals, one of the world's leading
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, had lost successive challenges
against the Viagra patent, but managed to pull out a win when it
mattered most.
Proponents of extending patent law often focus on the benefits of
encouraging innovation that may come from offering patentees exclusive
rights to their invention, yet the foundation of the law is about
striking a balance between public disclosure and exclusive rights to the
invention.
The law includes disclosure requirements that mandate that the patentee
"correctly and fully describe the invention." In this particular case,
Pfizer failed to actually describe which chemical compound was
effective. This led the trial judge to remark that the disclosure "plays
games with the reader."
The Supreme Court was seemingly in no mood for such games as it reminded
the parties that the patent system was based on a bargain that Pfizer
had failed to meet. In a paragraph that is likely to be quoted for many
years, the court stated:
"The patent system is based on a ‘bargain', or quid pro quo: the
inventor is granted exclusive rights in a new and useful invention for a
limited period in exchange for disclosure of the invention so that
society can benefit from this knowledge. This is the basic policy
rationale underlying the Act. The patent bargain encourages innovation
and advances science and technology."
Disclosure is therefore a crucial part of the patent bargain. The court
clarified that this involves not only a description of the invention and
how it works, but rather a much more practical level of disclosure "to
enable a person skilled in the art or the field of the invention to
produce it using only the instructions contained in the disclosure."
In this case, the court found that Pfizer failed to provide sufficient
disclosure, since the pharmaceutical giant "obscured the true
invention." Pfizer argued that this should not result in invalidating
the patent, but a unanimous court found no other alternative. The
immediate effect is that the Viagra patent is therefore voided in
Canada, which will allow for generic substitutes.
While some have tried to downplay the significance of the decision - the
Viagra patent was scheduled to expire in 2014 and Pfizer filed a motion
last week for a rehearing - the real importance lies in the court's
unequivocal assertion of the need for balance in the patent system and
the broader societal benefits that must accrue in return for patent
protection.
Innovation is a laudable goal, yet the court has reminded Canadians that
it is only part of the patent equation. Pharmaceutical companies will
undoubtedly continue to lobby for more extensive rights before
Parliamentary committees and in trade agreements, but the policy focus
from governments and courts should be on ensuring that the "patent
bargain" remains intact.
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and
E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can
reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.
patent, pfizer, teva, viagra Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday November 22, 2012 |
|
|
