No ‘Good faith’ attacks after a patent issues : The Federal Court of appeals clarifies S. 73(1)(A) of the Patent Act

NO‘GOODFAITH’ATTACKSAFTERAPATENTISSUES:THEFEDERALCOURT
OFAPPEALSCLARIFIESS.73(1)(A)OFTHEPATENTACT
A.SASHAMANDY*
ROBIC,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

OnJuly18,2011,theFederalCourtofAppealrendereditsjudgmentinCorlacInc.v.
WeatherfordCanadaInc.[1].Thecaseisofsignificantimportancetoapplicantsand
litigantsinCanadabecauseitsettlesthelawwithregardtothedutyofgoodfaith
owedbyapplicantstothePatentOfficeduringtheprosecutionoftheirpatent
applications.However,italsoraisesquestionsabouttheapplicabilityofs.73ofthe
PatentAct,aswellasaboutthelong-heldtestforobviousness.

WeatherfordbroughtanactionbeforetheFederalCourtclaimingdamagesresulting
fromtheallegedinfringementofCanadianpatentNo.2,095,937.Inanswerand
defence,Corlacarguedinteraliathatthepatentapplicationthatwastobecomethe
‘937patentwastechnicallyabandonedduringprosecutionbecausetheapplicant
failedtorespondingoodfaithtoarequisition.Therefore,the‘937patentshould
neverhaveissued.

AbriefreviewoftheprosecutionoftheapplicationisusefulinunderstandingCorlac’s
argument.InMayof1993,EdwardGrenkefiledapatentapplicationthateventually
becamethe‘937patent.TheinitialpetitionnamedGrenkeandasecondperson,
WalterTorfs,asco-inventors.TorfsdiedinNovemberofthatsameyear,andin1994,
Torfs’widowassignedanyofTorfs’rightsinthepatenttoGrenke.Laterin1994,
inresponsetoarequisitionfromthePatentOffice,Grenkesworeinanaffidavitthat
hewasthesoleinventorandthatTorfsshouldneverhavebeennamedasco-
inventorintheinitialpetition.Grenkeistheownerofthe‘937patent,whichwas
eventuallylicensedtoWeatherford.Attrial,JusticePhelanfoundthatGrenke’sbelief
thathewasthesolepersontohaveconceivedtheinventionwasnotcredible,and
thatTorfs’removalasaco-inventorbyGrenkewasmotivatedbyGrenke’sperception
thatTorfshad‘cuthimout’ofotherpatents.However,thejudgeneverconcludedthat
GrenkemadeawilfulmisleadingstatementtothePatentOffice.

©CIPS,2011.
*A.SashaMandyisamemberofROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrademark
agents.PublishedatAIPFIPLawBugle-July/August2011;availableathttp://aipf.com/no-good-faith-
attacks-after-a-patent-issues/
Publication062-055.

2
Section73(1)(a)ofthePatentActrequirestheapplicanttoreplyingoodfaithtoany
requisitionmadebyanexaminer.Failuretodosowithintheprescribeddelayresults
intheabandonmentofthepatentapplication.CorlacallegedthatGrenke’s
questionablemotivesforwantingtoremoveTorfsasaco-inventor,coupledwithhis
non-crediblebeliefthathewasthesolepersontohaveconceivedoftheinvention,
confirmthathedidnotmeethisstatutorydutyofgoodfaithwhenrespondingtothe
PatentOffice’srequisition.Therefore,theapplicationshouldhavebeendeemed
abandoned.
Afterinterpretings.73(1)(a)inlightoftheActandtherelevantauthorities,theFederal
CourtofAppealrejectedCorlac’sargument:“Tobeclear,theconceptof
abandonmentinparagraph73(1)(a)operatesduringtheprosecutionofthe
applicationforapatent.Itsoperationisextinguishedoncethepatentissues.”[2]Once
apatentissues,s.73(1)(a)cannotbeusedtoattackitsvalidity.Rather,s.53(1)of
theActmustbeusedforallegedmisrepresentationsmadetothePatentOffice.The
Courtaddedthattoconcludeotherwisewouldbeillogical:

Anissuedpatentwouldbesubjecttoretroactivescrutinybythecourtsinrelationto
thesubmissionsmadebyanapplicanttothePatentOfficeduringprosecution
(generallymanyyearsprior),judgedagainstunknowncriteria.Itisforthe
Commissionertodeterminewhetheranapplicant’sresponsetoarequisitionfroman
Examinerismadeingoodfaith,notforthecourts.Thecourtsdonotissuepatents.[3]

TheCourtaddedthatLundbeck[4]andG.D.Searle[5],twocasesoftenrelieduponby
litigantstoinvalidateissuedpatentsons.73(1)(a)grounds,donotstandforthe
“propositionthatparagraph73(1)(a)canberelieduponforthepurposeofattacking
thevalidityofapatent”[6].
Thisdecisionwillnodoubtpleasepatentagentsandapplicantsbecauseitdefinitively
removesoneofthegroundsforattackingthevalidityofanissuedpatent.However,it
alsoraisesnumerousconcernsabouttheapplicabilityofs.73(1)(a)inthe
prosecutionofpatents,bothpre-andpost-issuance.

First,theCourtplacesaheavyonusonthePatentOfficebyrequiringittodetermine
whetheranapplicanthasrespondedtoarequisitioningoodfaith.YettheCourtdoes
notprofferanyguidelinesonhowtoevaluatesucharesponse.Inlookingatthe
presentcaseforexample,Grenke’saffidavitmaynotrisetothelevelofamaterial
misstatementorbewilfullymisleading,butmightitmeetthelowerstandardofbad
faith?Ifso,howcanthePatentOfficeevencometothatdeterminationgiventhatits
verylimitedpowersofinquirywouldhavepreventeditfromassessingGrenke’strue
motives?
Second,theCourtrefusestoretroactivelyscrutinizesubmissionsmadebythe
applicanttothePatentOfficeduringprosecutionofthepatentapplication.Yetthis
scrutinyisstandardpracticewhenassessinganallegationofinvaliditygroundedons.
53(1)oftheAct.Courtsalsoroutinelylooktopaststatementsandactsofinventors

3
whenassessingutility,novelty,inventivenessandothergroundsusedtoinvalidate
patents.Indeed,inthepresentcase,thecourtlookedtoGrenke’stestimonyabout
pasteventswhenassessingCorlac’sargumentthathemadewilfullymisleading
statements.TheCourthasnotexplainedwhyanassessmentofthemeritsofan
allegationbasedons.73(1)(a)requiresadifferentsortofinquirythantheone
routinelyundertakenforformerstatementsandsubmissionsmadebytheapplicant.

UnderpinningmuchoftheCourt’sreasoningisperhapsadesiretoavoid
incorporatingtheU.S.doctrineofinequitableconductinCanadianpatentlaw.
AccordingtotheCourt[7],thedoctrine“requiresdemonstrationofbothmaterialityand
intenttodeceive,asignificantlyhigherstandardthanthegeneralgoodfaith
requirementadvancedbytheappellants.”Itisdescribedasthe“atomicbomb”of
patentlaw,andas“ever-expanding”[8].TheCourtisjustifiablyrighttofearaloosely-
defineddutyofgoodfaithmodeledonthedoctrineofinequitableconduct.However,
justastheU.S.doctrinewastightened,sotoocantheCanadianrequirementofgood
faithindealingswiththePatentOfficeberestrictedtoinvalidatethosepatents
resultingfromthemostseverecasesofmalfeasanceduringprosecution.

Onasidenote,theCourtalsorejectedCorlac’sargumentthatthetrialjudgedidnot
applythefour-stepobviousnesstestasincorporatedintoCanadianlawbythe
SupremeCourtinSanofi[9].Inwhatwillsurelycomeasasurprisetomanypatent
agents,especiallythosewhopassedtheirvalidityexamsinrecentyears,theCourt
statedthattheSanofitestisnot“acompulsorylegaltest”[10]butratherausefultool,
andthatfailureto“explicitlyfollowthestructuredoesnot,inandofitself,constitute
anerroroflaw”[11]whichisreviewablebyaCourtofAppealonastandardof
correctness.SincethetrialjudgefollowedtheSanofitestinsubstance,theCourt
wouldnotrevisithisanalysis.Itwillbeinterestingtoseewhetherfuturecaseswill
applythefour-stepobviousnessanalysis“insubstance”,insteadofexplicitly.

Inconclusion,whiletheCourtclosedonedoortos.73(1)(a)attackspostpatent
issuance,itopenedafewothersbyraisingquestionsaboutthepracticalityofs.
73(1)(a)inquiriesduringprosecution,andabouttheobviousnesstestthatwasonce
thoughttobesettledlaw.ItthusremainstobeseenwhetherthePatentOfficewillbe
abletoeffectivelydistinguishbetweengoodandbadfaithinresponsestorequisitions
giventhevolumeofapplicationsitpresentlyhastomanage,andthelimitedpowers
ofinquiryitpossesses.
[1]2011FCA228.
[2]Ibid.,par.150.
[3]Ibid.
[4]LundbeckCanadaInc.v.RatiopharmInc.,2009FC1102,79C.P.R.(4th)243.
[5]G.D.Searle&Co.v.NovopharmLtd.,2007FC81,[2008]1F.C.R.477,rev’d2007FCA173,
[2008]1F.C.R.529(G.D.Searle),leavetoappealrefused,[2007]S.C.C.A.No.340.
[6]Corlac,supranote1,par.151.
[7]Ibid.,par.150.
[8]Ibid.,par.128.

4
[9]ApotexInc.v.Sanofi-SynthelaboCanadaInc.,[2008]3S.C.R.265,par.67.
[10]Corlac,supranote1,par.67.
[11]Ibid.,par.68.

R
OBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis1892à
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,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD

Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)