SmithKline Beecham v. Apotex
(Part IV)

In an updated concurrence, J. Gajarsa adds firepower to his disagreement with the newly defined experimental use exception:

According to the majority, SKB’s testing of PHC’s performance as a human antidepressant was not necessary to reduce PHC to practice. The majority does not make clear, however, why testing a light pole’s performance at illumination under severe weather conditions was necessary to reduce the light pole to practice, Manville, why testing an all-weather activity mat’s performance in harsh weather was necessary to reduce the mat to practice, Seal-Flex, or why testing a floating dock’s performance in rough, choppy water was necessary to reduce the dock to practice, EZ-Dock.

In all four cases, the claims at issue were product claims that did not claim the tested features explicitly. In all four cases, the patentees possessed the claimed product in substantial enough form to test their products’ performance at their intended functions. The majority does not explain why only one of these four patentees had reduced its claimed invention to practice sufficiently to preclude the experimental use doctrine.

Read Part I, Part II, Part III, and part IV.