Re-examination and Impeachment: Two Ways to Oppose a Patent after it has been Issued
RE-EXAMINATIONANDIMPEACHMENT:TWOWAYSTOOPPOSEAPATENTAFTER
ITHASBEENISSUED
LaurenceBourget-Merle
*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com
Canada,thePatentActallowstheoppositiontoapatenttobeconducted
intwoways,eitherbyre-examinationorbyimpeachment.Thegoalofthe
presentarticleistopresenteachofthesetwoprocedures,theirimplications
andtheadvantagesand/ordisadvantagesofoneinrelationtotheother.
Re-examination(PatentAct,sections48.1to48.5)
There-examinationofapatentoccursfollowingthefilingofarequestwith
theCommissionerofPatents.There-examinationmayberequestedbya
thirdparty,whohasaninterest,orbythepatenteehimself.Theinterested
partycanrequestthere-examinationofthecontentandofthescopeofone
ormoreclaimsinthepatent,butonlyonthebasisofpriorartdocuments
consistingofpatents,publishedpatentapplicationsoranyotherpublished
document,which,preferably,wasnotcitedduringtheinitialexaminationof
theapplicationfromwhichthepatentwasissued.Theinterestedpartybears
theburdenofprooftoshowthatanewandimportantquestionwasraised
withregardstopatentabilitybyclearlydiscussingtherelevanceofeachprior
artdocumentandbyexplainingthereasonsforwhichoneorcertainclaims
maybeanticipatedand/orevidentinlightofthepriorartdocument(s).
Followingthereceiptoftherequest,theCommissionerestablishesare-
examinationboardwhichwillhandlethefile.Withinthreemonthsofits
establishment,theboardwillfirstdeterminetherelevanceofthere-
examination.Iftheboardisoftheopinionthattherequestforre-examination
doesnotraiseanysubstantialnewquestionofpatentabilityaffectingany
claimofthepatentconcerned,theboardnotifiesthepartywhofiledthe
requestforsuchadecisionandthefileisclosed.Iftherequestforre-
©CIPS,2006.
*OfLEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trademarkagents.PublishedintheSpring2006issue(Vol.10,No.2)issueofourNewsletter.
Publication068.074E.
examinationisaccepted,theboardsendsoutanoticetothepatenteein
orderforhimtopresenthispositiononthematter;thepatenteehasthree
monthstoreplytothenoticeandtopresentcommentsonthepatentability
oftheclaims.Thepatenteemaythereforesuggestmodificationstothe
claimsbeingre-examined,submitnewclaimsordecidetocancelclaims,as
longasthescopeoftheclaimsisnotbroadenedwhencomparedtothe
scopeoftheclaimsintheoriginalpatent.Theboardwillthenexaminethe
modificationsproposedbythepatenteeandwillrenderitsdecisionby
deliveringacertificatewithintwelvemonthsafterthenotificationtothe
patentee.Ifthecertificatecancelsoneormanyclaims,thepatentis
deemedtohavebeenissuedfromitsdateofgrant,butinitscorrectedform.
Ifalltheclaimsarecancelled,thepatentisdeemednevertohavebeen
issued.Ifanewclaimisincorporatedoramended,thisclaimiseffectivefrom
thedateofthecertificateandwillremainvaliduntiltheexpiryofthepatent
term.
Itisimportanttonotethatfollowingthereceiptofthecertificate,the
patentee,andonlythepatenteehimself,hasthreemonthsfromthedateof
thecertificatetofileanappealbeforetheFederalCourtconcerningthe
decisionrenderedbythere-examinationboard.
Impeachment(PatentAct,section60)
Theproceedingsforimpeachmentofapatentarebroughtbeforethe
FederalCourtandmaybeinstitutedbytheAttorneyGeneralofCanadaor
anyinterestedperson.Attheendoftheproceedings,thepatentinits
entiretyoroneormoreofitsclaimsmaybedeclaredvoid,oronthe
contrary,thepatentmaybeheldasvalid.
Itisimportanttonotethatthefactofdeclaringaclaimvoidwillnot
necessarilyaffectthevalidityoftheotherclaimsofthepatent.
Duringtheproceedingsforimpeachment,itistheresponsibilityofthe
interestedpersontoprovethatthepatentoroneormoreofitsclaimsare
void.Manyreasonsmaybeinvokedinanattempttoinvalidateapatent,
eitherbasedonpriorartorontechnicalreasonslinkedtointrinsicdefectsin
thepatent.Generally,aninterestedpersonwillattempttoprovethatthe
claimslacknovelty,inventivenessorutility,thattheyareambiguous,that
theyarenotsupportedbythedescription(i.e.thattheirscopeistoobroad
withregardstothedescription,orthatthedescriptionandtheexamplesin
thepatentdonotprovidesufficientelementstoallowthereproductionof
theinvention).Otherreasonsmayalsobealleged:overlapbetweentwo
patents,disconformitybetweentheissuedpatentandthepatent
applicationasoriginallyfiledorthepriorityapplication.Proceduralgrounds
suchas,forexample,aninappropriatestatementoftheinventorsor
incorrectinformationinthepetitionmayalsoberaised,butmostofthetime,
theseproceduralgroundsareconsideredinsufficienttoimpeachapatent.
Impeachmentproceedingsmaybeinstitutedbyfilinganactionbeforethe
FederalCourt.AdefendanttoaninfringementactionmayalsoasktheCourt
toinvalidatethepatentbyfilingacounterclaimtotheinfringementaction.
DuringtheCourtproceedings,boththeplaintiffandthepatenteewillbe
abletoexposeanddefendtheirrespectivepositions.Attheendofthe
proceedings,theFederalCourtrendersitsjudgementanddeclareswhether
thepatentoroneormoreofitsclaimsarevoid,orifthepatentisvalid.
DependingonthedecisionrenderedbytheCourt,theplaintifforthepatent
holdercanappealtotheFederalCourtofAppeal.
AdvantagesandDisadvantages
Impeachmentproceedingsmaybetimeconsumingandcostly.However,
suchproceedingsdohaveadvantagessincethepartywishingtoinvalidate
thepatentcandefenditsallegationsbeforetheCourtandwillhavethe
opportunitytolodgeanappealiftheCourtrulesagainstit.
Incontrast,there-examinationofapatentrequestedbyathirdpartydoes
notallowthispartytodefenditsallegationsortolodgeanappealfromthe
decisionrenderedbythere-examinationboard.Onlythepatenteehasthe
privilegeoflodginganappeal.However,there-examinationproceedings
maypresentanadvantageforathirdpartywhowishestoobtainadecision
morerapidlyatalowercost.
Also,asithasbeenexplainedpreviously,impeachmentproceedingsallow
forthe“attack”ofapatentinmanyways,eitheronthebasisofpriorartor
forreasonslinkedtointrinsicdefectsintheapplication.However,Canadian
Courtsaregenerallynotveryreceptivetoargumentslinkedtointrinsic
defects,andtheplaintiffwillbeinabetterpositionifthelackofnoveltyor
inventivenessisraisedandtheargumentsaretailoredtothisend.There-
examinationofapatentmayonlyberequestedonthebasisoflackof
noveltyand/orinventiveness,andthethirdpartyrequestingthere-
examinationmustprovethatanewandimportantquestionwasraisedwith
regardstothepatentabilityofoneormoreclaims,byclearlydiscussingthe
relevanceofeachpriorartdocument.
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplant
breeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusiness
law;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;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD