Supreme Court of Canada Voids Viagra Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Supreme Court of Canada Voids Viagra Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
#2Now the most important question here is how will this effect spam levels.
Will they go up due to cheap viagra in canada hawked in the US?
Or will they go down since anyone who wants cheap viagra can get it from Canada?
If the US does not issue a similar ruling, one thing you can expect is histrionics about banning drugs from Canada, even more than there already is.
Re: Supreme Court of Canada Voids Viagra Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
#3With generic drugs coming on the market, Pfizer will certainly soon face some stiff competition.
Re: Supreme Court of Canada Voids Viagra Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
#4The Supreme Court of Canada is extremely well respected by a majority of Canadians and this ruling is a very good example of the reason why it is so well respected.
Re: Supreme Court of Canada Voids Viagra Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
#5Worth mentioning the patent was set to expire in Canada in ~18 months anyways. The US patent was set to expire in early 2012 but coverage appears to have been extended to 2019. The bigger resulting effect here might be from the establishment of a precedent of the wording that the court is expecting in patent filings. In the full ruling below, the main missing disclosure I can see is:
"Only sildenafil, the subject of Claim 7 and the active compound in Viagra, had been shown to be effective in treating ED at the time of the patent application. Although the patent includes the statement that “one of the especially preferred compounds induces penile erection in impotent males”, the patent application does not disclose that the compound that works is sildenafil, that it is found in Claim 7, or that the remaining compounds had not been found to be effective in treating ED."
The full ruling is here http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc60/2012scc60...
Re: Supreme Court of Canada Voids Viagra Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
#6With generic drugs coming on the market, Pfizer will certainly soon face some stiff competition.
They must be disappointed that their patent just didn't stand up.
Re: Supreme Court of Canada Voids Viagra Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
#7The problem I have with software patents is that they basically do the same thing. They request monopoly power over the invention while not disclosing how someone in the field could implement it, which would require source code, etc.
Since software patents don't disclose enough for another programmer to implement the invention, I don't see how they are benefiting society. They don't share the knowledge but still get the monopoly benefit.
Re: Supreme Court of Canada Voids Viagra Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
#8The Supreme Court of Canada is extremely well respected by a majority of Canadians and this ruling is a very good example of the reason why it is so well respected.
Fellow Canadian here - indeed. You'd be hard pressed to guess which way a particular Justice leans politically, unlike our cousins to the south. Heck, our Chief Justice excused herself from Conrad Black's potential hearing because she didn't want to be in a conflict of interest. That's integrity right there.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1285112-...
Re: Supreme Court of Canada Voids Viagra Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
#9Patent laws generally could certainly be improved.
But by far the biggest problem is software patents. There's no need to make all patents (software, hardware, pharma, etc.) the same because the industries and the cost structures / innovation cycles are very different.
Re: Supreme Court of Canada Voids Viagra Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
#10The problem I have with software patents is that they basically do the same thing. They request monopoly power over the invention while not disclosing how someone in the field could implement it, which would require source code, etc. Since software patents don't disclose enough for another programmer to implement the invention, I don't see how they are benefiting society. They don't share the knowledge but still get…
Personally I think a lot of software patents explain well enough that I could implement their "invention".
It's just that the invention is so simple/obvious to us that I wonder how they got a patent and no prior art was found.