Final Actions are “Final”! The Federal Court Reaffirms its Decision in Belzberg

2011-01-01

FINALACTIONSARE‘FINAL’!
THEFEDERALCOURTREAFFIRMSITSDECISIONINBELZBERG
A.
SASHAMANDY*1
ROBIC,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

InBartleyv.Canada(CommissionerofPatents)2011FC873,JusticeHughesofthe
FederalCourtmadeaclearstatementontheconclusivenatureofaFinalAction
duringpatentprosecution.Insodoing,theFederalCourthighlightedthekey
elementsofaFinalActionandreaffirmedtheconclusionsitreachedinBelzbergv.
CommissionerofPatents2009FC657.TheBartleycaseisofimportancetopatent
applicantsandlitigatorsinCanadabecauseitreiteratesthefinalityoftheFinal
Action.Accordingly,ifthePatentAppealBoard(PAB)andCommissionerreverseall
claimrejectionsraisedinaFinalActionreport,theapplicantisentitledtoimmediate
issuanceofaNoticeofAllowancewithoutfurtherobjectionsbeingraised.

TheFacts

TheApplicantssoughtjudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCommissionerofPatentsin
whichsherefusedtograntthemapatentinrespectoftheirApplicationCA2,159,968
entitled”ProtectiveMemberforaVehicle”,filedinthePatentOfficeonOctober5,
1995.
Afteralongandfruitlessprosecution,theApplicantsfiledanotherresponsein
February,2006andaddedsixclaimstotheapplication.TheExaminer,ina
requisitiondatedMarch,2006,refusedtoallowthenewclaimsonthebasisthatthere
wasinsufficientdisclosureinthespecificationfromwhichthoseclaimscouldbe
supportedandonthebasisofpriorart.InJanuary,2007theApplicantsrespondedto
bothobjectionsandrequestedthatthepatentExaminerissueaFinalActionifhe
wasn’tinagreementwiththeirarguments.Accordingly,theExaminerissuedaFinal
ActioninJuly,2007thatcontinuedtorejecttheclaimsbasedonthereasonsstatedin
theMarch,2006requisition.

©CIPS,2011.*LawyerandJuniorEngineer,A.SashaMandyisamemberofROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.PublishedintheSeptemberissueofWorldIntellectual
PropertyReview.Publication142.253.

2
Section30ofthePatentRulesconcernsFinalActionsandtheopportunitytobe
heardifastalemateisreached:30.(3)Whereanapplicanthasrepliedingoodfaithtoarequisition
referredtoinsubsection(2)withinthetimeprovidedbuttheexaminer
hasreasonablegroundstobelievethattheapplicationstilldoesnot
complywiththeActortheseRulesinrespectofoneormoreofthe
defectsreferredtointherequisitionandthattheapplicantwillnot
amendtheapplicationtocomplywiththeActandtheseRules,the
examinermayrejecttheapplication.
(4)Whereanexaminerrejectsanapplication,thenoticeshallbear
thenotation“FinalAction”or“Décisionfinale”,shallindicatethe
outstandingdefectsandshallrequisitiontheapplicanttoamendthe
applicationinordertocomplywiththeActandtheseRulesorto
provideargumentsastowhytheapplicationdoescomply,withinthe
six-monthperiodaftertherequisitionismadeor,exceptinrespectof
PartV,withinanyshorterperiodestablishedbytheCommissionerin
accordancewithparagraph73(1)(a)oftheAct.
(6)Wheretherejectionisnotwithdrawnpursuanttosubsection(5),
therejectionshallbereviewedbytheCommissionerandthe
applicantshallbegivenanopportunitytobeheard.

InJanuary,2008theApplicantsfiledadetailedresponsetotheFinalAction.APAB
wassubsequentlyconstituted,andthePABconcludedthattherejectionmadebythe
Examinerwasnotjustifiedandrecommendedthattherejectionbereversed.
Curiously,thePABrecommendedthattheapplicationbereturnedtotheExaminer”to
addressanyoutstandingdefectswhichhavebeenheldinabeyance”.The
Commissionerconcurred[andreturnedthemattertotheExaminer.
ThePatentAppeal
Boardcannotmakedecisions.Instead,itformulatesarecommendationtotheCommissioner
ofPatentswhoisauthorisedbythePatentActtotakeappropriateaction.Inpractice,the
recommendationsofthePABarealmostalwaysfollowedbytheCommissioner.]

InJuly,2009theExaminerissuedanewrequisitionraisingtwoobjections.Thefirstof
thesewassimplyareassertionofseveralpiecesofpriorartpreviouslycited.The
secondwastocitepriorartthathadneverbeforebeenraised.TheApplicants
respondedinSeptember,2009bywritingaletterdirectlytotheCommissioner
entitled”PetitionforRelief”.TheCommissionerrespondedinDecember,2009
denyingtherequest.ItisthedecisionoftheCommissionerassetoutinthisletter
thatisthesubjectofthejudicialreviewapplicationbeforetheFederalCourt.

TheFederalCourtJudgement
JusticeHughesbeganhisanalysisbyassertingthatthecircumstancesintheinstant
caseweresimilartothoseconsideredbytheFederalCourtinBelzberg.Inthatcase,

3
aFinalActionwasissuedandthenconsideredbythePAB.ThePABinBelzberg
recommendedthattherejectionbereversedandthematterreturnedtotheExaminer
forfurtherprosecutionconsistentwithitsrecommendation.TheCommissioner
concurredwiththesefindingsandreturnedthematterforfurtherprosecution.The
Examinersubsequentlyissuedafurtherrequisitionrejectingtheapplication.Upon
hearingtheapplicationforjudicialreview,JusticeSandraSimpsonoftheFederal
Courtultimatelysetasidethefurtherrequisition,anddirectedtheCommissionerto
grantthepatent.

JusticeHughesreiteratedJusticeSimpson’sconclusionthatFinalActionsmustlist
“all”outstandingdefects.Thisrequirementisnotundulyonerousorcontrarytothe
spiritandintentofthepatentregime.JusticeHughesconcurredthatitissensiblein
thecontexttogivetheword”final”itsordinarymeaning,andthatdefectsidentifiedin
aFinalActionarecomprehensiveratherthanamereselection:
[80]Ifind,asJusticeSimpsondidinBelzberg,supra,thataFinal
Actionismeanttobejustthat,final.Thereisanobligationuponthe
examinertoputeverythingonthetablethatrequirestheapplicants,
and,ifnecessary,theBoardandtheCommissioner,todealwith.
Thereisnoprovisiontoreserveuponorkeepcertainmatters
“outstanding”.
[81]Eveniftherewereprovisionsforkeepingmattersoutstanding,
therecordinthiscasefailstodemonstrateclearlythattherewere
“outstanding”mattersor,ifso,whattheywere.

AccordingtoJusticeSimpsoninBelzberg,andreaffirmedbyJusticeHughesinthe
instantcase,theMOPOP,thelanguageofsection30oftheRules,andthescheme
oftheActmakeitclearthatafinalactionistodisposeofapatentapplication.

Inotherwords,followingaPABhearingtheCommissioneristomakeoneoftwo
decisions:i)refusethepatentapplicationundersection40oftheAct;or
ii)grantthepatentapplicationundersection27oftheAct.

Ultimately,theFederalCourtallowedtheapplicationwithcostsandreturnedthe
mattertotheCommissionerforredeterminationbearinginmindthefollowing:
•theBoard’srecommendationthattherewere”outstandingmatters”wasin
error;
•inviewofBelzberg,thereservationofmattersfromaFinalActionisa
questionable,ifnotimproper,procedure;

Conclusion

4
Thisdecisionwillnodoubtpleasebothpatentapplicantsandagentsbecauseit
ensuresthattheyknowexactlywhatobjectionstheyaredealingincasetheircase
shouldgobeforethePatentAppealBoard.Inotherwords,thisdecisionreaffirmsthe
“finality”ofaFinalActionbyrequiringthateverypossibleobjectiontheExaminermay
raisebeputtotheApplicantintheFinalAction.TheExaminercannotkeepcertain
matters“outstanding”.
ItfollowsthatsincethePABisconstitutedonlytoreviewFinalActions,its
recommendationsmustbelimitedtotheobjectionsraisedintheFinalAction.The
Commissionercanthendecideinonlyoneoftwoways:eitherrejecttheapplication,
orallowit.Thereisnopossibilitytoreturntheapplicationforfurthersubstantive
examination.
JusticeHughesrenderedjudgmentonJuly12,2011.Itwillbeinterestingtosee
whethertheCommissionerwillappealthedecision.Hehasuntiltheendof
September,2011todecide.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,
marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireet
artistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-
howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,
litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentand
trademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsof
intellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certification
marksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;
licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;
marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.

COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER

5
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)