In the past five years, the Canadian Federal Court has invalidated several patents based on an arguably “technical” deficiency – the “Promise/utility” requirement.
The most recent trend however suggests an increasing reluctance to both find an “elevated Promise”, and require a patentee to meet such a Promise. Instead the Federal Court of Appeal in late 2014 reinforced a “pro-patentee” approach by applying the “rule in favour of saving an invention rather than invalidating it” and is now consistently holding that Promises must be “explicit” ie. supported by clear and unambiguous . . . [more]