Inadvertent failure to respond to part of an Office Action Leads to irrevocable abandonment of Patent Application

I
NADVERTENTFAILURETORESPONDTOPARTOFANOFFICEACTION
LEADSTOIRREVOCABLEABANDONMENTOFPATENTAPPLICATION

ALEXANDRASTEELE*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS
TheFederalCourtofCanadarecentlyruledthatevenaninadvertentomissionto
respondtoanyrequisitioncontainedinapatentexaminer’sreport(“OfficeAction”)
willleadtotheirrevocableabandonmentofapatentapplicationifarequestfor
reinstatementifnottimelyfiledandthis,despitethefactthatthepatentapplicantmay
beunawarethatisresponsetotheOfficeActionwasnotfullyresponsive.[DBC
MarineSafetySystemsLtd.v.TheCommissionerofPatentsetal.,2007FC1142,
MosleyJ.,November5,2007]
TheLaw
Therelevantexcerptsofsubsection30PatentRulesreadasfollows:
30.[…]
(2)Whereanexaminerexamininganapplicationinaccordancewith
section35oftheActortheActasitreadimmediatelybefore
October1,1989hasreasonablegroundstobelievethatan
applicationdoesnotcomplywiththeActortheseRules,the
examinershallinformtheapplicantoftheapplication’sdefectsand
shallrequisitiontheapplicanttoamendtheapplicationinorderto
complyortoprovideargumentsastowhytheapplicationdoes
comply,withinthesix-monthperiodaftertherequisitionismadeor,
exceptinrespectofPartV,withinanyshorterperiodestablishedby
theCommissionerinaccordancewithparagraph73(1)(a)oftheAct.
(3)Whereanapplicanthasrepliedingoodfaithtoarequisition
referredtoinsubsection(2)withinthetimeprovidedbutthe
examinerhasreasonablegroundstobelievethattheapplicationstill
doesnotcomplywiththeActortheseRulesinrespectofoneor
moreofthedefectsreferredtointherequisitionandthatthe

©CIPS,2008.*Lawyer,AlexandraSteeleisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirm
oflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.Publishedina2008issueoftheWorldIntellectual
PropertyReport.Publication
142.209.

2
applicantwillnotamendtheapplicationtocomplywiththeActand
theseRules,theexaminermayrejecttheapplication.
(4)Whereanexaminerrejectsanapplication,thenoticeshallbearthe
notation“FinalAction”or“Décisionfinale”,shallindicatetheoutstanding
defectsandshallrequisitiontheapplicanttoamendtheapplicationinorder
tocomplywiththeActandtheseRulesortoprovideargumentsastowhy
theapplicationdoescomply,withinthesix-monthperiodafterthe
requisitionismadeor,exceptinrespectofPartV,withinanyshorter
periodestablishedbytheCommissionerinaccordancewithparagraph
73(1)(a)oftheAct.[…]

Section29PatentRulesreadsasfollows:
29.(1)Whereanexaminerexamininganapplicationinaccordance
withsection35oftheActortheActasitreadimmediatelybefore
October1,1989hasreasonablegroundstobelievethatanapplication
forapatentdescribingthesameinventionhasbeenfiled,inorforany
country,onbehalfoftheapplicantoronbehalfofanyotherperson
claimingunderaninventornamedintheapplicationbeingexamined,
theexaminermayrequisitionfromtheapplicantanyofthefollowing
informationandacopyofanyrelateddocument:
(a)anidentificationofanypriorartcitedinrespectofthe
applications;
(b)theapplicationnumbers,filingdatesand,ifgranted,the
patentnumbers;
(c)particularsofconflict,opposition,re-examinationorsimilar
proceedings;and
(d)whereadocumentisnotineitherEnglishorFrench,a
translationofthedocument,orapartofthedocument,into
EnglishorFrench.

(2)Whereanexaminerexamininganapplicationinaccordancewith
section35oftheActortheActasitreadimmediatelybeforeOctober
1,1989hasreasonablegroundstobelievethataninventiondisclosed
intheapplicationwas,beforethefilingdateoftheapplication,
publishedorthesubjectofapatent,theexaminermayrequisitionthe
applicanttoidentifythefirstpublicationoforpatentforthatinvention.
(3)Subsections(1)and(2)donotapplytoanyinformationor
documentthatisnotavailableorknowntotheapplicant,providedthat
theapplicantstatesthereasonswhytheinformationordocumentis
notavailableorknown.
Section73(1)(a)PatentActreadsasfollows:

3
73.(1)AnapplicationforapatentinCanadashallbedeemedtobe
abandonediftheapplicantdoesnot
(a)replyingoodfaithtoanyrequisitionmadeanexaminerin
connectionwithanexamination,withinsixmonthsaftertherequisition
ismadeorwithinanyshorterperiodestablishedbytheCommissioner;
[…]
TheFacts
Thepatentapplicant,DBCMarineSafetySystemsLtd.(“DBC”),filedaCanadian
patentapplicationonApril2,1998basedonapriorcorrespondingUSpatent
application.OnAugust10,2004,DBC’spatentagentsreceivedanOfficeAction
wherebythePatentExaminerindicatedthatithadtworequisitions:thefirstrelatingto
subsection30(2)ofthePatentRulesandthesecondpursuanttosection29ofthe
PatentRules.ThefirstpageoftheOfficeActioncontainedthefollowingproviso:
Inordertoavoidmultipleabandonmentsunderparagraph73(1)(a)of
thePatentAct,awrittenreplytoeachrequisitionmustbereceived
within6monthsaftertheabovedate.

DBC’spatentagentsrespondedtotheOfficeActiononFebruary7,2005,threedays
beforetheexpiryofthedeadline.Thereplycontainedaresponsetotherequisition
undersubsection30(2)ofthePatentRulesintheformofamendmentstothepatent
application.However,itappearsthattherequisitionundersection29ofthePatent
Rules,whichwastoidentifypriorartincorrespondingUSandUKcorresponding
applications,wasoverlookedandsonoresponsewasprovidedinthe
aforementionedreplytotheOfficeAction.
Inthemonthsthatfollowed,DBCpaidtherequisitemaintenancefeesfor2005.In
Aprilof2006,sinceithadnotheardbackfromthePatentOfficesincefilingthereply
totheOfficeActiononeyearandtwomonthsprior,DBCinquiredastothestatusof
theexaminationofitspatent.ThePatentOfficereturnedaNoticeofAbandonment
andadvisedthatsuchnoticehadbeenmailedtoDBC’sagentsonFebruary10,
2005.
ItshouldbenotedthattheCanadianPatentOfficehasnoobligationundersection29
ofthePatentRulesorundersubsection73(1)(a)ofthePatentActtoinforman
applicantoftheabandonmentofitspatent.However,intheperiodbetween1996and
2003,thepracticeofthePatentOfficewastosendacourtesynoticetotheapplicant
inorderforittocurethedefaultandrequestthereinstatementofthepatent
application.Inthiscase,sincethecourtesynoticewasneversent(asnotedbythe
Court),norequestforreinstatementoftheDBCpatentapplicationwasmadeduring
thereinstatementperiodasDBCwasunawareoftheabandonmentofitsapplication.

4
Turningbacktothefactsofthecase,notwithstandingthefactthatthetwelvemonth
statutorydelaytorequestthereinstatementofthepatenthadlapsedonFebruary10,
2006,DBCappealedtotheCommissionerofPatentsandsubmittedthemissing
informationandtheappropriatefee.NotwithstandingthesestepstakenbyDBC,the
CommissionerofPatentsrefusedtoreinstatethepatentasitwasoftheviewthatit
hadnodiscretionarypowerstoreinstateanabandonedpatentbeyondthetwelve
monthreinstatementperiod.
DBCappliedforjudicialreviewofthedecisionoftheCommissionerofPatentsand
requestedthatsuchdecisionbequashedandthatthepatentapplicationbe
reinstatedandreferredbacktothePatentExaminerfordeterminationonthemerits.
TheFederalCourtJudgement
TheCommissionerofPatents’positionwasthatithasnodiscretiontoreinstatea
patentbeyondthereinstatementperiodandtherefore,therewasnoreviewable
decisionbeforetheCourt.TheirrevocableabandonmentoftheDBCpatentwas
simplytheresultofnon-compliancewiththeprovisionsofthelaw.TheCommissioner
ofPatentsfurthersubmittedthatthePatentOfficewasundernoobligationtosend
DBCaNoticeofAbandonmentandtherefore,DBCcouldnotrelyonpastpracticesor
customstoarguethatitshouldhavebeennotifiedoftheabandonmentofitspatent
application.
DBCsubmittedthatSection73(1)(a)ofthePatentActrequirestheCommissionerof
Patentstodecidewhetheranapplicant’sresponsetoarequisitionhasbeeningood
faith.DBCfurtherarguedthatwhetheraresponseis“ingoodfaith”ornotisa
reviewabledecisionoftheCommissionerofPatents.Thus,ifonlyapartialresponse
toanOfficeActionisreceived,therenonethelessisadutytodetermine“goodfaith”
ornotandsoonewayortheother,theapplicantshouldbenotified.
BoththeCommissionerofPatentsandtheCourtopinedthattherecanbeno
questionofassessinggoodfaithifthereisnoresponse.TheCourtwrites:
[31][…]Theapplicantfailedtorespondtobothrequisitions,despite
theclearindicationontheletterreceivedbytheiragentthatsuch
lapsewouldresultinabandonment.Replyingingoodfaithtoone
requisitioninanofficeactioncontainingtwoisnottheequivalentof
replyingingoodfaithtoboth.Thestatuteallowsforno“goodfaith”
exceptiontotherequirementsofparagraph73(1)(a)wheretherehas
beenfailuretorespondtoarequisition.

DBCalsopleadedthatthecurrentpracticeofthePatentOfficelackedprocedural
fairness.Asmentionedabove,from1996to2003,thePatentOfficesentcourtesy
noticestopatentapplicantswhohadnorespondedinfulltoanOfficeAction.
However,asof2003,theconceptof“multipleabandonments”ofapatentapplication

5
wasintroducedthroughanoticetotheprofession,whichmeantthatapatent
applicationcouldbecomeabandonedonmultiplegroundsandtherefore,multiple
requestsforreinstatementwouldhavetobemade,andmultiplereinstatementfees
paid,inordertofullyreinstatetheapplication.Despitethischange,thePatentOffice
continuedtosendcourtesynoticesfromtimetotime,notablyinsituationswherea
requisitionundersection29ofthePatentRuleshadbeenoverlooked.
Notwithstandingtheabove,theCourtconcludedthattheCommissionerofPatents
hadnodutytoprovideanynoticetoDBC.Theobligationtofullyrespondtoany
requisitionofthePatentExaminer,ortorequestthereinstatementofitsapplication
withinthedelay,wasclearlyplacedontheshouldersofDBCbythelegislative
scheme.TheCourtwrites:
[43][…]AsIhavealreadydecidedthattheCommissionerhadno
discretionintheautomaticapplicationoftheAct,anyfailureonher
parttofollowtheguidelinesoftheManualcannotrelievetheapplicant
ofitslegislatedobligations,norcanitallowtheapplicanttoavoidthe
legalconsequenceoffailingtosatisfythoseobligations.

Forthesesreasons,theCourtdismissedtheapplicationforjudicialreview.
Conclusion
AnappealofJusticeMosley’sdecisionwaslodgedbyDBConDecember5,2007.
ForDBC,aswellasforallpatentapplicantswhoentrusttheirinventionstothe
Canadianpatentprocess,thedevelopmentsinthiscasewillbeimportantasthe
currentjudgementconfirmstheirrevocablelossofapatentapplicationduetoan
oversight,whichneitherthepatentapplicantnoritsagentsweremadeawareofuntil
wellafterthedeadlinehadpassedtocurethedefault.
Formanypatentpractitioners,thiscaseiseerilyreminiscentofBartonNo-TillDisk
Inc.v.DutchIndustriesLtd,2003F.C.A.121,wheretheFederalCourtofAppeal
concludedthatadministrativestepstakenbytheCommissionerofPatentstoease
someharshconsequencesinthelawwereofnoeffectifsuchstepswerenot
explicitlyauthorizedbythelegislativescheme.OnlytimewilltelliftheFederalCourt
ofAppealwilldeemthecurrentpracticeofthePatentOfficetobeinlinewiththe
properinterpretationofthePatentActandRules,andinparticularwithsection29of
thePatentRulesandsubsection73(1)(a)ofthePatentAct,orratherifthepast
practiceofnotifyingthepatentapplicantofitsfailuretorespondtoasection29
PatentRulesrequisitionshouldprevail.

6

7
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.
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.
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