Date: 20001109
Docket: A-814-99
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LINDEN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
| PROGRESSIVE GAMES, INC. |
Appellant
- and -
| THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS |
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, November 9, 2000
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Thursday, November 9, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A.
Date: 20001109
Docket: A-814-99
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LINDEN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
| PROGRESSIVE GAMES, INC. |
Appellant
- and -
| THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, November 9, 2000)
SEXTON J.A.
[1] We are not persuaded that Mr. Justice Denault erred in his decision (reported at (1999), 3 C.P.R. (4th) 517) that the appellant's game of poker constituted something which is not patentable. He concluded that the Appellant's changes in the method of playing poker did not amount to a contribution or addition to the cumulative wisdom on the subject of the game. These changes merely amounted to a change in the way an existing and well-known game is played. These changes do not substantially modify the poker game as it is generally known. The Appellant's suggested game uses the standard deck of playing cards and the conventional rules of poker with a slight variation. We do not believe this amounts to a new and innovative method of applying skill or knowledge within the meaning given to those words in Shell Oil Company v. The Commissioner of Patents [1982] 2 S.C.R. 536. We should add that we do not want to be taken as deciding that more substantial changes in the existing game would have changed the result.
[2] The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs.
"J. Edgar Sexton"
J.A.