Novozymes v. Genencor International Inc.

Novozymes v. Genencor International Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-03-28 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 129 File numbers A-379-06 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20070328 Docket: A-379-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 129 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: NOVOZYMES A/S Appellant and GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL, INC. and COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS Respondents Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on March 28, 2007. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 28, 2007. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A. Date: 20070328 Docket: A-379-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 129 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: NOVOZYMES A/S Appellant and GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL, INC. and COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 28, 2007) DESJARDINS J.A. [1] Novozymes A/S appeals a decision of Pinard J. (Genencor International Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents, 2006 FC 1021) setting aside the order of Prothonotary Morneau dated July 13, 2006. Pinard J. granted 10 days to Novozymes A/S to formally re-apply to the Federal Court for leave to intervene, in accordance with rule 109 of the Federal Court Rules, in the appeal filed by Genencor International, Inc. pursuant to section 48.5 of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 (the Act). [2] Although we do not agree with the reasons adopted by Pinard J. in their entirety, we are of the view that he made no reviewable error in concluding as he did. [3] Rule 338(1) sets out which persons must be included as respondents in an appeal before the Federal Court: 338. (1) Unless the Court orders otherwise, an appellant shall include as a respondent in an appeal (a) every party in the first instance who is adverse in interest to the appellant in the appeal; (b) any other person required to be named as a party by an Act of Parliament pursuant to which the appeal is brought; and (c) where there are no persons that are included under paragraph (a) or (b), the Attorney General of Canada. [Emphasis added.] 338. (1) Sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour, l’appelant désigne les personnes suivantes à titre d’intimés dans l’appel : a) toute personne qui était une partie dans la première instance et qui a dans l’appel des intérêts opposés aux siens; b) toute autre personne qui doit être désignée à titre de partie aux termes de la loi fédérale qui autorise l’appel; c) si les alinéas a) et b) ne s’appliquent pas, le procureur général du Canada. [Je souligne.] [4] The term “first instance” is defined at rule 336: 336. In this Part, "first instance" means a proceeding in the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada or the tribunal whose order is being appealed. 336. Dans la présente partie, « première instance » s’entend de l’instance devant la Cour fédérale, la Cour canadienne de l’impôt ou l’office fédéral dont l’ordonnance est portée en appel. [5] Novozymes was not “a party in the first instance” within the meaning of rule 338(1)(a). [6] Sections 48.1 to 48.5 of the Act set out the scheme for the re-examination of patents. They read: RE-EXAMINATION Request for re-examination 48.1 (1) Any person may request a re-examination of any claim of a patent by filing with the Commissioner prior art, consisting of patents, applications for patents open to public inspection and printed publications, and by paying a prescribed fee. (2) A request for re-examination under subsection (1) shall set forth the pertinency of the prior art and the manner of applying the prior art to the claim for which re-examination is requested. (3) Forthwith after receipt of a request for re-examination under subsection (1), the Commissioner shall send a copy of the request to the patentee of the patent in respect of which the request is made, unless the patentee is the person who made the request. Establishment of re-examination board 48.2 (1) Forthwith after receipt of a request for re-examination under subsection 48.1(1), the Commissioner shall establish a re-examination board consisting of not fewer than three persons, at least two of whom shall be employees of the Patent Office, to which the request shall be referred for determination. (2) A re-examination board shall, within three months following its establishment, determine whether a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent concerned is raised by the request for re-examination. (3) Where a re-examination board has determined that a request for re-examination does not raise a substantial new question affecting the patentability of a claim of the patent concerned, the board shall so notify the person who filed the request and the decision of the board is final for all purposes and is not subject to appeal or to review by any court. (4) Where a re-examination board has determined that a request for re-examination raises a substantial new question affecting the patentability of a claim of the patent concerned, the board shall notify the patentee of the determination and the reasons therefor. (5) A patentee who receives notice under subsection (4) may, within three months of the date of the notice, submit to the re-examination board a reply to the notice setting out submissions on the question of the patentability of the claim of the patent in respect of which the notice was given. Re-examination proceeding 48.3 (1) On receipt of a reply under subsection 48.2(5) or in the absence of any reply within three months after notice is given under subsection 48.2(4), a re-examination board shall forthwith cause a re-examination to be made of the claim of the patent in respect of which the request for re-examination was submitted. (2) In any re-examination proceeding under subsection (1), the patentee may propose any amendment to the patent or any new claims in relation thereto but no proposed amendment or new claim enlarging the scope of a claim of the patent shall be permitted. (3) A re-examination proceeding in respect of a claim of a patent shall be completed within twelve months of the commencement of the proceedings under subsection (1). Certificate of board 48.4 (1) On conclusion of a re-examination proceeding in respect of a claim of a patent, the re-examination board shall issue a certificate (a) cancelling any claim of the patent determined to be unpatentable; (b) confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable; or (c) incorporating in the patent any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable. (2) A certificate issued in respect of a patent under subsection (1) shall be attached to the patent and made part thereof by reference, and a copy of the certificate shall be sent by registered mail to the patentee. (3) For the purposes of this Act, where a certificate issued in respect of a patent under subsection (1) (a) cancels any claim but not all claims of the patent, the patent shall be deemed to have been issued, from the date of grant, in the corrected form; (b) cancels all claims of the patent, the patent shall be deemed never to have been issued; or (c) amends any claim of the patent or incorporates a new claim in the patent, the amended claim or new claim shall be effective, from the date of the certificate, for the unexpired term of the patent. (4) Subsection (3) does not apply until the time for taking an appeal has expired under subsection 48.5(2) and, if an appeal is taken, subsection (3) applies only to the extent provided in the final judgment on the appeal. Appeals 48.5 (1) Any decision of a re-examination board set out in a certificate issued under subsection 48.4(1) is subject to appeal by the patentee to the Federal Court. (2) No appeal may be taken under subsection (1) after three months from the date a copy of the certificate is sent by registered mail to the patentee. RÉEXAMEN Demande 48.1 (1) Chacun peut demander le réexamen de toute revendication d’un brevet sur dépôt, auprès du commissaire, d’un dossier d’antériorité constitué de brevets, de demandes de brevet accessibles au public et d’imprimés et sur paiement des taxes réglementaires. (2) La demande énonce la pertinence du dossier et sa correspondance avec les revendications du brevet. (3) Sur réception de la demande, le commissaire en expédie un double au titulaire du brevet attaqué, sauf si celui-ci est également le demandeur. Constitution d’un conseil de réexamen 48.2 (1) Sur dépôt de la demande, le commissaire constitue un conseil de réexamen formé d’au moins trois conseillers, dont deux au moins sont rattachés au Bureau des brevets, qui se saisissent de la demande. (2) Dans les trois mois suivant sa constitution, le conseil décide si la demande soulève un nouveau point de fond vis-à-vis de la brevetabilité des revendications du brevet en cause. (3) Le conseil avise le demandeur de toute décision négative, celle-ci étant finale et ne pouvant faire l’objet d’un appel ou d’une révision judiciaire. (4) En cas de décision positive, le conseil expédie un avis motivé de la décision au titulaire du brevet. (5) Dans les trois mois suivant la date de l’avis, le titulaire en cause peut expédier au conseil une réponse exposant ses observations sur la brevetabilité des revendications du brevet visé par l’avis. Procédure de réexamen 48.3 (1) Sur réception de la réponse ou au plus tard trois mois après l’avis mentionné au paragraphe 48.2(4), le conseil se saisit du réexamen des revendications du brevet en cause. (2) Le titulaire peut proposer des modifications au brevet ou toute nouvelle revendication à cet égard qui n’ont pas pour effet d’élargir la portée des revendications du brevet original. (3) Le réexamen doit être terminé dans les douze mois suivant le début de la procédure. Constat 48.4 (1) À l’issue du réexamen, le conseil délivre un constat portant rejet ou confirmation des revendications du brevet attaqué ou, le cas échéant, versant au brevet toute modification ou nouvelle revendication jugée brevetable. (2) Le constat est annexé au brevet, dont il fait partie intégrante. Un double en est expédié, par courrier recommandé, au titulaire du brevet. (3) Pour l’application de la présente loi, lorsqu’un constat : a) rejette une revendication du brevet sans en rejeter la totalité, celui-ci est réputé, à compter de la date de sa délivrance, délivré en la forme modifiée; b) rejette la totalité de ces revendications, le brevet est réputé n’avoir jamais été délivré; c) modifie une telle revendication ou en inclut une nouvelle, l’une ou l’autre prend effet à compter de la date du constat jusqu’à l’expiration de la durée du brevet. (4) Le paragraphe (3) ne s’applique qu’à compter de l’expiration du délai visé au paragraphe 48.5(2). S’il y a appel, il ne s’applique que dans la mesure prévue par le jugement définitif rendu en l’espèce. Appel 48.5 (1) Le titulaire du brevet peut saisir la Cour fédérale d’un appel portant sur le constat de décision visé au paragraphe 48.4(1). (2) Il ne peut être formé d’appel plus de trois mois après l’expédition du double du constat au titulaire du brevet. [7] Re-examination pursuant to sections 48.1 to 48.5 of the Act is a two-step process. Both stages do not involve the same parties. The first stage involves the filing of a request by a requester (section 48.1), the establishment of a re-examination board by the Commissioner in response to this request (section 48.2(1)) and the preliminary decision by the re-examination board as to whether the request raises a substantial new question of patentability (section 48.2(2) to (4)). [8] The second stage follows the re-examination board’s determination that a substantial new question of patentability is raised (section 48.2(4)). The requester is not a party to this second phase of the process. Only the re-examination board and the patentee are parties to that phase. Only the patentee is given notice of such determination (section 48.2(4)) and is entitled to make submissions (section 48.2(5)), to propose amendments to the patent (section 48.3(2)) and to receive a copy of the certificate (section 48.4(2)). Only the patentee is given a right of appeal (section 48.5). [9] Although Novozymes, as the requester, triggered the re-examination process, it did not and could not participate in the second stage of the re-examination process. [10] Pinard J. made no reviewable error in finding that Novozymes was not a proper respondent since it was not a “a party in the first instance” within the meaning of rule 338(1)(a). [11] This appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs. "Alice Desjardins" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-379-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: NOVOZYMES A/S and GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL INC. and COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: March 28, 2007 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: Desjardins J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Desjardins, J.A. APPEARANCES: Susan Beaubien FOR THE APPELLANT Hélène D'Iorio FOR THE RESPONDENT GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL INC. SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Macera & Jarzyna, Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson LLP, Montreal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL INC. Department of Justice Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS