Federal Court Rules that Commissioner of Patents Has no Jurisduction to Reinstate an Expired Patent
1
FEDERALCOURTRULESTHATCOMMISSIONEROFPATENTSHASNO
JURISDUCTIONTOREINSTATEANEXPIREDPATENT
By
AlexandraSteele*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
INTRODUCTION
OnjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCommissionerofPatents
(“Commissioner”)refusingtoreinstateapatentthathadexpireddueto
failurebythepatenteetopaythemaintenancefees,theFederalCourtheld
thattheCommissionerhadnojurisdiction,eitherinherentorunderthePatent
Act,torevivesuchanexpiredpatent(P.E.FusionLLCv.AttorneyGeneralof
Canadaetal,2004FC645,MosleyJ.,April29,2004).
THEFACTS
TheApplicantP.E.FusionLLC(“Applicant”)wastheownerofapatentthat
wasappliedforonJune3,1987andissuedonApril30,1991.Thepatentwas
assignedbytheinventor/originalownertotheApplicantinOctober1999.
Afterthechangeofownership,theCanadianlawfirmwhichhad
representedtheinventor/originalownerarrangedforpaymentoftheyear
2000maintenancefeeandthenproceededtoremovethepatentfromits
docketinaccordancewithinstructionsithadreceivedfromaforeign
associate.Thenextmaintenancefees,dueinApril2001,wasnotpaidby
eithertheApplicant,theinventor/originalownerofthepatentorthelawfirms
thatrepresentedthemduetoanadministrativeimbroglio.Infact,the
Applicantassumedthatthe2001maintenancefeeshadbeenpaidsinceit
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2004*Lawyer,AlexandraSteeleisamemberofthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andof
thepatentandtrade-markagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.PublishedunderthetitleCommissionner
LacksJurisdictionToReinstateLapsedPatentat(July2004),18-7WIPR6-7.Publication
142.164.
2
hadproceededtoreimbursetheoriginalowner/inventorforanerroneous
chargetohisaccountataboutthesametimethe2001maintenancefees
wouldhavebeenpayable.
InApril2002,attheexpiryoftheoneyeargraceperiodaffordedbythe
PatentActtoallowapatenteetoremedyadefaultinpayingtherequired
maintenancefees,thepatentlapsed.InapproximatelyDecember2002,the
Applicantdiscoveredtheerrorandthroughitsattorneys,itattemptedto
rectifysame.However,theCommissionerrefusedtoreinstatethepatent,
rulingthatithadnojurisdictionunderthePatentAct,toreinstatealapsed
patent.
THEFEDERALCOURTJUDGEMENT
TheApplicant’sfirstargumentwasthattheabsenceofpaymentofthe
maintenancefeeswasduetoa“clericalerror”withinthemeaningofs.8of
thePatentAct:
1
“ClericalerrorsinanyinstrumentofrecordinthePatentOfficeshall
notbeconstruedasinvalidatingtheinstrument,but,when
discovered,theymaybecorrectedbycertificateunderthe
authorityoftheCommissioner.”
TheCourtdidnotretainthisargument:inthelearnedTrialJudge’sview,the
factthattherecordreflectedthatthepatentwasexpiredconstitutedan
exactnotation.TheCourtruledthatthepatenthadnotlapsedduetoa
“clerical”errorofthePatentOffice,withinthemeaningofthePatentAct,but
toanadministrativeerroronthepartofthepatentee,oritsagents.The
aboveprovisionofthePatentActthereforeonlyfindsanapplicationifthe
erroremanatesfromthePatentOffice,notthepatentee.TheCourttherefore
dismissedtheApplicant’sfirstgroundofreview,rulingthattheCommissioner
hadrightlydecidedtorefusetoreinstatethepatentbasedareferencetos.8
ofthePatentAct.
TheApplicant’ssecondargumentwasthattheCommissionerhaderredin
lawbynotexercisingitsinherentjurisdictionwhichwouldallowittoreinstatea
patentwhichhadlapsedduetoa“genuine”mistakeonthepartofthe
patentee,oritsagents.TheApplicantreliedonParke-DavisDivision,Warner
LambertCanadaInc.v.Canada(MinisterofHealth),(2002)22C.P.R.(4
th)417
(F.C.A.),whereithadbeensuccessfullyarguedthataprincipleofcommon
1SincethepatentwasappliedforpriortoOctober1,1989,referenceismadetothe
PatentActasitreadimmediatelyprecedingtheamendmentstothisAct.
3
lawthatdoesnotcontradictthePatentActmayaffecttheapplicationof
saidAct.ApplicantarguedthatdespitetheAct’ssilenceontheissueofthis
extendedjurisdiction,theCommissionerhadtheauthoritytoreinstatethe
patent.
JusticeMosleydisagreedwiththeApplicantonthefollowinggrounds:
a)s.46ofthePatentAct
2aswellasthePatentRules,cannotbereadin
suchaswayastoconferanydiscretionwhatsoevertothe
Commissionerasconcernsthetimeforpaymentofthemaintenance
fees;
b)thisinterpretationoftheActandPatentRuleswasagainrecently
confirmedbytheFederalCourtofAppealinBartonNo-tillDiskInc.v.
DutchIndustries,(2003)24C.P.R.(4
th)157(F.C.A.)3,wheretheCourtof
AppealruledthattheCommissionerhadnojurisdictiontoextendthe
deadlineforpaymentofmaintenancefees,nortorelieveapatentee
forunderpayingsaidfees;
c)theParke-Davisdecisionmentionedabovedoesnotsupportthe
Applicant’sposition,sincethefactualbackgroundinParke-Daviswas
verydifferentfromthefactsoftheApplicant’scase;
d)thenotionof“genuine”mistakewasnotdefinedinthePatentActand
constitutedaverybroadconcept.TherewasnomechanismintheAct
thatgrantedtheCommissioneranydiscretionwhatsoevertoreinstate
anexpiredpatent,(otherthantheoneyeargraceperiod),and
thereforethepartiesandtheCourtwereboundbytheprovisionsofthe
ActandPatentRules.
Forallthereasonsmentionedabove,theCourtdismissedtheApplicant’s
secondgroundforreviewandhencetheentireapplicationforjudicial
review.
CONCLUSION
AlthoughtheCourtsympathisedwiththeApplicant’spredicament,asthe
patenthadlapsednotwithstandingitsgoodfaith,theJudgecouldnotfind
anylegalbasisforreinstatingthepatent,astheprovisionsofthePatentAct
andRulesdidnot“openthedoor”tosucharemedy.
2Id.3LeaveforappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadadismissedonDecember11,2003.
4
Lawfirmswhomonitorpatentfilesusuallyhaveaneffectivesysteminplace
toensurethatallpatentsaredocketedforpaymentofmaintenancefees.
However,humanerrorisalwayspossible,especiallywhenassignmentsof
patentsleadtoachangeofagents.Clearinstructionsfromtheformerand
newpatenteeformaintenanceofthepatentshouldbesoughtandobtained
inwriting,inordertoavoidanyconfusioninthemindsofthepartiesastowho
isresponsibleforfollowinguponthestatusofthepatent.Thiscaseshowsthat
asimpleadministrativeerrormayhaveirremediableconsequences…
5
ROBIC,ungrouped avocatsetd agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd origine;droitsd auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD