| Unlike in the US or Europe, there are no clear guidelines in Canada governing patenting requirements in the field of biotechnology, and case law is limited. In the absence of domestic policy or law, the Canadian Patent Office is greatly influenced by the practices of the US and European patent offices. This approach has been endorsed by the Canadian courts, who have frequently turned to other jurisdictions for guidance when domestic law is lacking. In recent decisions, such as the Federal Court Trial Division in Monsanto Canada Inc. versus Schmeiser (2001), 12 C.P.R. (4th) 204 (F.C.T.D.); the Federal Court of Appeal in The President and Fellows of Harvard College versus Canada (Commissioner of Patents) (2000), 7 C.P.R. (4th) 1 [hereinafter Harvard College, Supra]; and the Supreme Court of Canada in Free World Trust versus Electro Sante Inc. (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 168, the Courts espoused the value of referring to US case law and practice to provide guidance in the development of Canadian patent law. |
