KSR v. Teleflex. Part 1: Impact of U.S Supreme Court Patent Law on Canadian intellectual property and regulatory rights landscape.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In KSR, SCOTUS retooled the standard for obviousness to bring it back in line with the court's previous decisions in Hotchkiss and Graham. A comparative review of the law of obviousness in the United States and Canada, and its relation to innovation and competition, was undertaken in Sections II and III. The focal point of observed differences is the inherent creativity and inventiveness of the PHOSITA, which in turn informs several binary and highly rigid aspects of Canadian patent law relevant to a statutory determination of obviousness. While American and English skilled technicians are viewed by courts in their parent jurisdictions as inherently creative and thus able to construe the prior art both implicitly and explicitly, the Canadian PHOSITA possesses not even a "mere scintilla" of inventiveness. As such, the reference point for the obviousness analysis in Canada, but not in the U.S. or U.K., is a PHOSITA who has much less than the average level of normative creativity, who is indeed no PHOSITA at all due to a de minimus level of creativity. The result in either case is removal of the PHOSITA from the obviousness determination, contrary to the provisions of Canadian patent legislation. As such, the current test for obviousness in Canada parallels in many important aspects the Federal Circuit's much maligned pre-KSR "teaching, suggestion, motivation" test that was explicitly overturned in KSR. For reasons discussed in Section III, jurisdictional differences of this nature not only have the potential to harm Canadian inventors and firms seeking to market innovative products globally, but may also, paradoxically, inhibit strong innovation by granting weak patents in the context of permissive legislation and regulations governing the approval and marketing of medical products.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".