No Double-Dipping in Patents

2012-03-01

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC
2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

NODOUBLE-DIPPINGINPATENTS

LAURENCEBOURGET-MERLE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

Thedoctrineprohibitingdoublepatentingcanbeinvokedtotrytoinvalidateapatent.
Canadianexaminersalsouseittorejectcertainpatentapplications.Theissueof
doublepatentingforobviousnessisespeciallydifficulttoovercomeandprecautions
mustbetakenwhendifferentpatentapplicationsarefiledbasedonthesame
inventiveconcept.

Thisdoctrinecomesfromajudicialrulethatoriginatesfromthepre-1989provisions
ofthePatentAct.Atthetime,thelawprovidedthatapatentwouldexpire17years
afteritsdateofissue,whereastodayapatentexpires20yearsafteritsfilingdate.
Theruleofdoublepatentingwascreatedtopreventevergreeningofpatents,whichis
anundueextensionofthemonopolygrantedtothepatenteeviasuccessivepatents
obtainedthroughtheadditionofelementsthatarenotneworthatareobvious.Thus,
thisdoctrineapplieswhenthesameparties,inventorsand/orapplicantsareinvolved.

AlthoughthisdoctrinehasbeenappliedforthefirsttimeintheFarbwerke
Hoechstcasein1964[CommissionerofPatentsv.FarbwerkeHoechst
AktiengesellschaftVormalsMeisterLucius&Bruning,[1964]R.C.S.49],itisthe
Whirlpool
2case,renderedin2000bytheSupremeCourtofCanada[WhirlpoolCorp.
v.CamcoInc.,2000CSC67]thatiscitedasthereferencecaseforexplainingthe
doctrine.InWhirlpool,itwasdeterminedthattherearetwotypesofdoublepatenting:

1)doublepatentingforwhichtheclaimedinventionsareidentical,and
2)”obviousness-type”doublepatentingthatpreventstheissuanceofa
secondpatent

inwhichclaimsarenot“patentablydistinct”fromthoseofthefirstpatent.

The
GlaxoSmithKline
case[GlaxosmithklineInc.v.ApotexInc.,2003CFPI687],
renderedbytheFederalCourtin2003,broughtanewelementtothisdoctrine.Ata
firstlevel,thefindingsinGlaxoSmithKlineweretopreventpharmaceuticalinventors
fromundulyregisteringpatentsatthePatentRegisterunderthePatentMedicines
Regulations(NoticeofCompliance).Thisdecisionhoweverextendedthedoctrineof

©CIPS,2012.
*FromROBIC,LLP,multidisciplinaryfirmofLawyers,andPatentandTrade-markAgents.Published
intheWinter201
2(Vol.15,no.4)Newsletterofthefirm.Publication068.146E.

doublepatentingtopatentswiththesamefilingda
teandexpiringatthesametime,
evenif“evergreening”ofpropertyrightscouldnotbeexpectedinthiscase.

InCanadianpractice,theissueofdoublepatentingoccurs,forexample,wherean
applicanthastwoco-pendingpatentapplicationsthatarenotcitableagainsteach
other,norfornoveltyundersection28.2oftheAct,norforevidenceundersection
28.3oftheAct,butthatclaiminventionswhichhaveacommoninventiveconcept.It
canapplytotwodistinctapplicationsfiledonthesameday,whichcanhaveidentical
descriptionsornot.Iftheapplicationshavethesamedescriptionbutdifferentclaims
(i.e.oneapplicationclaimsaproductwhileanotherapplicationclaimsitsmethodof
preparationoritsuse),onecanworkaroundtheproblembycombiningtheclaimsof
bothapplicationsintoone,aslongasnopatenthasbeengrantedregardingthese
applications.However,ifbothapplicationshavedifferentdescriptionsandthesupport
forthesubjectmatteroftheclaimsofoneapplicationarenotfoundintheother,
switchingbetweenapplicationswillnotbepossible.Anapplicationwillhavetobe
abandoned.Thus,evenifitwouldbeacceptableinothercountries,itisnotadvisable
tofileseparateapplicationsclaiminginventionswiththesameinventiveconceptin
Canada.Itispreferable,whereverpossible,tofileasingleapplicationwhereall
aspectsoftheinventionaredescribedandclaimed.

Doublepatentingproblemsoccuralsointhecaseofadivisionalapplication,which
doesnotclaimadistinctinventionfromtheoneclaimedintheparentapplication.
Thishappens,forinstance,whenlimitedclaimsareacceptedandtheapplicantfilesa
divisiontotrytoobtainapatentwithbroaderclaims,justasitisdoneintheUnited
Statedbyfilinga“continuation”application.Onecanalsofindadivisionalapplication
claimingthemanufacturingprocessortheuseofaproductthatisitselfclaimedinthe
parentapplication.
However,thisstrategyisnotpossibleinCanadasinceadivisionalapplicationisonly
acceptableifitclaimsaninventionhavingadifferentinventiveconceptthanthe
inventionclaimedintheparentapplication.Thatiswhywealsorecommendfilinga
divisionalapplicationinCanadaonlywhentheoriginalapplicationwasfirstrejected
forlackofunityofinvention.Eveniftheapplicantbelievestheapplicationdescribes
separateinventions,wewillinvitehimtoaddtotheapplicationanyotherclaim
regardinganyinventionnotalreadyclaimedfor.Thiswillallowtheapplicanttoobtain
theapprovaloftheexaminer,orarejectionforlackofunity,iftheexaminerconsiders
thatthenewaddedclaimscoveraseparateinvention.Itwillthenbemadepossible
tofileadivisionalapplicationwithcompleteconfidence.

TheprohibitionofdoublepatentinginCanadamayleadtoadverseconsequencesby
eitherpreventinganapplicantfromobtainingapatentforaninventionheintendedto
protectorbyinvalidatinghispatent.However,adoptinganappropriatestrategyas
describedabovecancircumventthisproblem.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetse
tdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis1892à
laprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessins
industrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
d’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;
informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;
secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;
commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,
litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentand
trademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectual
property:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindications
oforigin;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
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHE
WORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)