No “Lack of Good Faith” Attacks after a Patent Issues

NO“LACKOFGOODFAITH”ATTACKSAFTERAPATENTISSUES

A.SASHAMANDY*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

OnJuly18,2011,theFederalCourtofAppealrendereditsjudgmentinCorlacInc.v.
WeatherfordCanadaInc.(2011FCA228).Thecaseisofsignificantimportanceto
applicantsandlitigantsinCanadabecauseitaddressesthelawwithregardtothe
dutyofgoodfaithowedbyapplicantstothePatentOfficeduringtheprosecutionof
theirpatentapplications.However,italsoraisesquestionsabouttheapplicabilityofs.
73ofthePatentAct.
ThecontroversyregardingthisissuestemsfromrecentCanadiancourtcasesthat
seemedtosuggestthatthenon-respectofadutyofgoodfaithduringtheprosecution
ofpatentapplicationscouldleadtoinvalidationofapatentafteritsissuance.(See
oneofourrecentarticlesonthissubject:“Patents:DutyofCandorinCanada?”)

AbriefreviewoftheprosecutionoftheapplicationisusefulinunderstandingCorlac’s
argumentinthepresentcase.InMayof1993,EdwardGrenkefiledapatent
applicationthateventuallybecamethe‘937patent.TheinitialpetitionnamedGrenke
andasecondperson,WalterTorfs,asco-inventors.TorfsdiedinNovemberofthat
sameyear,andin1994,Torfs’widowassignedanyofTorfs’rightsinthepatentto
Grenke.Laterin1994,inresponsetoarequisitionfromthePatentOffice,Grenke
sworeinanaffidavitthathewasthesoleinventorandthatTorfsshouldneverhave
beennamedasco-inventorintheinitialpetition.DuringthetrialwhereCorlacwas
suedforpatentinfringement,Corlacdefendeditselfbytryingtoinvalidatethe
patent.JusticePhelan,thejudgeduringthistrial,doubtedGrenke’smotivesfor
naminghimselfsoleinventor,butneverconcludedthatGrenkemadeawilfully
misleadingstatementtothePatentOffice.
Section73(1)(a)ofthePatentActrequirestheapplicanttoreplyingoodfaithtoany
requisition(i.e.request)madebyanexaminer.Failuretodosowithintheprescribed
delayresultsintheabandonmentofthepatentapplication.Corlacallegedthat
Grenke’squestionablemotivesforwantingtoremoveTorfsasaco-inventor
confirmedthathedidnotmeethisdutyofgoodfaithwhenrespondingtothePatent
Office’srequisition.Therefore,theapplicationshouldhavebeendeemedabandoned.

©CIPS,2011.
*FromROBIC,LLP,multidisciplinaryfirmofLawyers,andPatentandTrade-markAgents.Published
intheSpring2011(Vol.15,no.2)Newsletterofthefirm.Publication068.138E.

2

TheFederalCourtofAppealrejectedCorlac’sargument.Thejudgesconcludedthat
section73(1)(a)didnotapplytoissuedpatentsbuttocontrolthepatentapplications
duringprosecution.TheCourtruledthatonceapatentissues,s.73(1)(a)cannotbe
usedtoattackitsvalidity.
Rather,s.53(1)oftheActmustbeusedforallegedmisrepresentationsmadetothe
PatentOffice.Duringtheprosecutionofanapplication,itisuptothePatentOfficeto
determinewhethertheapplicanthasrespondedingoodfaith.TheCourtconsidered
thatCorlacdidnotprovethatthetrialjudgecommittedanerror,northatthepublic’s
useoftheinventionwouldbeputintoquestionbecauseoftheactionsofthe
inventors.
ComparisonwiththeUS
37CFR1.56oftheU.S.PatentRulesstatesthat“[e]achindividualassociatedwith
thefilingandprosecutionofapatentapplicationhasadutyofcandorandgoodfaith
indealingwiththeOffice…nopatentwillbegrantedonanapplicationinconnection
withwhichfraudontheOfficewaspracticedorattemptedorthedutyofdisclosure
wasviolatedthroughbadfaithorintentionalmisconduct”(emphasisadded).Hence
theUSPatentOffice,asopposedtoitsCanadiancounterpart,requiresadutyof
goodfaithwhichappliesthroughoutpendencyofthepatentapplicationandafter
issuance.Ifapersoncansatisfyacourtthattherewasbadfaithduringthispendency
period,theymaybeabletorenderthepatentunenforceableintheUS.Thisriskfor
patentholdersinCanadaisreducedinviewofthecurrentdecision.

Indeed,thisdecisionwillnodoubtpleasepatentagentsandapplicantsbecauseit
definitivelyremovesoneofthegroundsforattackingthevalidityofanissuedpatent.
However,italsoraisessomeconcernsabouttheapplicabilityofs.73(1)(a)inthe
prosecutionofpatents,bothpre-andpost-issuance.Onesuchconcernishowthe
PatentOffice,giventhevolumeofapplicationsitpresentlyhastodealwith,willbe
abletoeffectivelydistinguishbetweengoodandbadfaithinresponsestorequisitions.
Itwillbeinterestingtoseehow,inthefuture,thePatentOfficewilldealwiththis
heavyburden.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis1892à
laprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessins
industrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
d’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;

3
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”)