Log in
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
New member
Sign up for FREE
New customer
Discover our services
Dynamic quotes 

MarketScreener Homepage  >  Equities  >  Nyse  >  Whirlpool    WHR


SummaryMost relevantAll NewsPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener StrategiesAnalyst Recommendations

Whirlpool : Federal Court Rejects "Problem-Solution Approach" Opening The Field For Computer-Implemented Inventions

share with twitter share with LinkedIn share with facebook
09/01/2020 | 10:11am EDT

In a significant decision released August 21, 2020, Choueifaty v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 837 [Choueifaty], Canada's Federal Court rejected the Canadian Intellectual Property Office's (CIPO) approach to examining computer-implemented inventions. The Choueifaty decision could significantly impact how CIPO assesses patent-eligible subject-matter and have important implications for the patentability of diagnostic methods.

CIPO's current "problem-solution approach"

CIPO uses a "problem-solution approach" for determining the essential elements of patent claims. This approach involves:

  1. identifying a problem disclosed by a patent application; and
  2. construing the essential elements of a claim to be those elements which are "necessary to achieve a disclosed solution to an identified problem".

This approach has been particularly problematic for applicants seeking patents for computer-implemented inventions, as it allows CIPO to easily disregard computer elements in claims as non-essential on the basis that the computer elements are "not necessary" to achieve a particular solution. Without the computer elements, such inventions are often rejected as not patent-eligible because the remaining elements of the claims lack physicality.

Choueifaty rejects CIPO's "problem-solution approach"

In allowing the appeal by the applicant in Choueifaty, the Federal Court found that the "problem-solution approach" was contrary to the purposive claims construction required under Canadian law as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decisions of Free World Trust v Électro Santé Inc, 2000 SCC 66 [Free World Trust] and Whirlpool Corp v Camco Inc, 2000 SCC 67 [Whirlpool], finding that although CIPO "states that patent claims are to be construed in a purposive manner", CIPO does not "intend or direct patent examiners to follow the teachings of Free World Trust and Whirlpool".

CIPO is required to employ the proper purposive claims construction test

The Federal Court directed CIPO to employ the proper purposive claims construction test outlined in Free World Trust and Whirlpool.

Briefly, a proper purposive claims construction involves a presumption of essentiality, whereby every element claimed is presumed essential, unless the following two questions are both satisfied to support a finding that a claim element is not essential:

  1. Would it be obvious to a skilled reader that varying a particular element would not affect the way the invention works? If modifying or substituting the element changes the way the invention works, then that element is essential.
  2. Is it the intention of the inventor, considering the express language of the claim, or inferred from it, that the element was intended to be essential? If so, then it is an essential element.

The Federal Court emphasized that both branches have to be satisfied when assessing essentiality. The "problem-solution approach" used by CIPO only considered whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a particular claim element could be varied (or omitted) without affecting the way the invention works (see 1 above) and disregarded the intention of the inventor (see 2 above). To do so was improper, and akin to using the "substance of the invention" approach rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada in Free World Trust.

Conclusion and future implications

CIPO adopted the "problem-solution approach" for construing claims in 2013. Since that time, numerous applications (particularly applications directed to computer-implemented inventions) have been rejected as being not patent-eligible because CIPO used this approach to construe certain claim elements as non-essential.

The Federal Court has now rejected CIPO's approach and emphasized the importance of the intention of the inventor in proper purposive claims construction. This will make it much more difficult for CIPO to dismiss explicitly-recited claim elements as non-essential.

The Attorney General may appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal within 30 days. However, in view of this current decision of the Federal Court, applicants should immediately consider:

  1. Reinstating applications abandoned due to subject-matter eligibility rejections. Applications can generally be reinstated within 12 months of the date of abandonment. 
  2. Appealing any unfavourable Patent Appeal Board decisions decided prior to Choueifaty on the basis of subject-matter eligibility rejections. Decisions can be appealed to the Federal Court within six months of the date of the Notice of Refusal.

For more information on patent eligibility, please reach out to a member of our Patents practice group.

The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.

Ms Artemis Lai
Smart & Biggar
55 Metcalfe Street Suite 900
PO Box 2999 Station D
ON K1P 5Y6
Tel: 4165935514
Fax: 4165911690
E-mail: JDumaran@smartbiggar.ca
URL: www.smartbiggar.ca

© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

share with twitter share with LinkedIn share with facebook
All news about WHIRLPOOL
10/19WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION : Increases Quarterly Dividend By $0.05
10/16WHIRLPOOL : Thinking about buying stock in Virgin Galactic, Flex Ltd, Quest Diag..
10/15The Portable Air Purifier Market to Acquire $16054 Million in Revenue by 2028
10/14WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION : To Announce Third-Quarter Results On October 21 And Hold..
10/13WHIRLPOOL : Cleveland Manufacturing Community Steps in to Rebuild the Home of a ..
10/07SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Tops 4,000 Customers
10/06WHIRLPOOL : Surging appliance sales cause shortages ahead of business holiday sh..
09/30XPO LOGISTICS : Wins Two Awards for Excellence from Whirlpool Corporation; Recog..
09/25Electrolux reinstates dividend as earnings recover from pandemic blow
09/16CHOUEIFATY : A "Solution" To A "Problem" For Computer-Implemented And Medical Di..
More news
Financials (USD)
Sales 2020 18 188 M - -
Net income 2020 665 M - -
Net Debt 2020 3 391 M - -
P/E ratio 2020 19,1x
Yield 2020 2,51%
Capitalization 12 389 M 12 389 M -
EV / Sales 2020 0,87x
EV / Sales 2021 0,80x
Nbr of Employees 77 000
Free-Float 55,2%
Duration : Period :
Whirlpool Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends WHIRLPOOL
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
Income Statement Evolution
Mean consensus HOLD
Number of Analysts 11
Average target price 174,75 $
Last Close Price 198,88 $
Spread / Highest target 20,7%
Spread / Average Target -12,1%
Spread / Lowest Target -31,6%
EPS Revisions
Marc Robert Bitzer Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
James W. Peters Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President
Christian John Wade Gianni Senior Vice President-Product Development
Gary T. DiCamillo Independent Director
Michael D. White Independent Director
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capitalization (M$)
WHIRLPOOL34.81%12 389
QINGDAO HAIER14.05%21 897
COWAY CO., LTD.-15.36%5 012