thumbleftDr. Drolet's 1990 Copyrighted (Rhumart System), "MBI-3000 RESC Controller", model# 7802. Electro-magnetic therapeutic system is the English title of Canadian Patent 1,113,156 which was issued in 1981.The Government of Canada (GoC). Canadian Patents Database: Help: Bibliographic and Text Data Fields . Department: Industry Canada. Agency: Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), Accessed 26-03-2008.
(Note: The "Bibliographic and Text Data Fields" explains that (54) is "English/French Titles", which means, "The name of the invention as provided by the applicant, or as translated by CIPO.")http://patents.ic.gc.ca/cipo/cpd/en/help/content.html#54
(Annotation: This is a help guide that explains The Canadian Patents Database. It explains accessibility, the Completeness of Date Fields, Patents, Patent Document Images, Language Considerations, International agreed Number for the Identification of (bibliographic) Data code (INID code), Patent Classifications, Text Data Fields, Administrative Status Definitions, Maintenance Fees Definitions, Payment History, Viewing Patent Document Images, Site Availability & Downloading Capabilities.) The inventors Dr. Roland A. Drolet and Gaetan Charland, both from Canada, claimed that the device was an "electro-magnetic device for treating various types of rheumatic and arthritic diseases." The invention related to a technique of bombarding human bodies with low-frequency electromagnetic waves and controlled the wave frequency using "circuit means".
Justice Binnie wrote the decision for a unanimous Court. He began by describing the process of interpreting a patent through "claim construction". Claim construction is the process where the inessential part of the patent are distinguished from its essential elements which are protectable by patent. In this case, the essential elements of the two patents held by Free World included controls that regulated the electro-magnetic waves "by circuit means". This invention, Binnie found, was more than a mere aggregation of known components and was not anticipated by publications. The primary issue to Binnie was how to resolve the conflict between "literal" and "substantive" infringement. He states that one of the purposes of the Patent Act is to achieve fairness and predictability in order to promote research and development. He was concerned that protection provided by a broad reading of a patent would scare innovators from exploring similar ideas surrounding a claimed patent. According to Binnie, predictability could be achieved by "tying the patentee to its claims" and fairness would be achieved by "interpreting those claims in an informed and purposive way". Binnie was hesitant for courts to attempt to find the "spirit of the invention" which would create more uncertainty and unpredictability. His proposed "purposive construction" approach would avoid literal interpretation while limiting the scope of substantive claims in attempt to balance fairness between the patentee and the public. Purposive construction identifies the essential from the non-essential. The analysis is from the perspective of a "worker skilled in the art to which the patent relates as of the date the patent is published". If an essential element is different or missing from the challenged invention then there is no infringement. However, there may still be infringement where only non-essential elements are different or missing. A non-essential element is one that, from the words of the claim, are not clearly intended to be essential, or where a skilled reader would have been able to identify a substitute. In applying these principles to the facts of the case, Binnie found that Electro Sante's invention did not infringe upon Free World's patent. The essential elements of these inventions are not the results they produce but the way of producing them. The patent holder cannot monopolize all means of producing a particular result. The use of a microcontroller was significantly different that it constituted a different invention.
* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
*Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)
*Deep brain stimulation
Canadian Patent 1113156
Canadian Patent 1150361
Category:Canadian patent case law Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases Category:Electromagnetism Category:Bioelectromagnetic-based therapies Category:2000 in Canadian case law