Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents)
Supreme Court of Canada case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents)?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents)[2] is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case concerning the patentability of higher life forms within the context of the Patent Act.[3] At issue was the patentability of the Harvard oncomouse, a mouse that had its genome genetically altered by a cancer-promoting gene (oncogene). In a 5-4 split, the Supreme Court held that the oncomouse and higher life forms in general are not patentable subject matter in Canada.
Quick Facts Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), Hearing: May 21, 2002 Judgment: December 5, 2002 ...
Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) | |
---|---|
Hearing: May 21, 2002 Judgment: December 5, 2002 | |
Full case name | Commissioner of Patents v. President and Fellows of Harvard College |
Citations | 2002 SCC 76, 219 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 21 C.P.R. (4th) 417, [2004] 235 F.T.R. 214 |
Docket No. | 28155 [1] |
Prior history | Judgment for Harvard from the Federal Court of Appeal. |
Ruling | Gov't appeal allowed |
Holding | |
Higher life-forms are not patentable under the meaning of "invention" in section 2 of the Patent Act | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel | |
Reasons given | |
Majority | Bastarache J., joined by L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, and LeBel JJ. |
Dissent | Binnie J., joined by McLachlin, Major, Arbour JJ. |
Close