What Constitutes Patentable Subject Matter in the Field of Biotechnology Invention

Abstract

Canadian law and practice has been influenced by developments first in the U.K. and then in the U.S.

British decisions were based on an interpretation of the term “manner of new manufacture”. Canadian practice was initially influenced by British decisions even though the Canadian definition of invention includes broader terms such as “composition of matter”. A re-examination of the traditional view that living matter could not be patented followed the Chakrabarty decision in the U.S. Microbiological products are now patentable. The Patent Office has refused to grant protection for genetically new plants but this decision is subject to appeal to the Supreme Court. This paper also discusses novelty, utility, obviousness, reproducibility and deposits in collections.