Abandonment, Death and Resurection of Patents and Patent Applications in Canada
A
BANDONMENT,DEATHANDRESURECTIONOFPATENTSANDPATENT
APPLICATIONSINCANADA
JEREMYLAWSONANDROYMACHAALANY*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS
1.Introduction
2.Outofgoodstanding–definitions
2.1“Abandoned”applications
2.2“Reinstated”applications
2.2.1Multipleabandonments
2.2.2NoticeofAbandonment
2.2.3Practicalusesofabandonmentprocedures
2.3“Dead”applications
2.4“Expired”patents
2.5“Lapsed”patents
2.6“Resurrection”ofdeadapplicationsorlapsedpatents
3.Attemptedresurrectionofdeadapplications
3.1Dutchindustries
3.2PeterEibavs.TheAttorneyGeneralofCanada
3.3HarryO.Wicksvs.TheCommissionerofPatents
4.Attemptedresurrectionsoflapsedpatents
4.1Hoffman-LaRochevs.TheCommissionerofPatents,(2003)F.C.1381
4.1.1FederalCourt
4.1.1.1Fairness
4.1.1.2Legitimateexpectation
4.1.1.3Equity
4.1.1.4Estoppel
4.1.2FederalCourtofAppeals
4.2P.E.FusionLLCvs.TheAttorneyGeneralofCanada
5.Abrieflookacrosstheborder:USpractice
5.1Petitionrequestingwithdrawalofholdingofabandonment
5.2Petitionforrevivalforfailuretotimelytakeaction
5.2.1Unavoidable
5.2.2Unintentional
5.3Petitionfordelayedpaymentofmaintenancefee
©CIPS,2007.*RespectivelyJuniorEngineer-PatentSectorandarticlingtudent,bothofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP,amuldisciplinaryfirmofLawyers,andPatentandTrade-markAgents.Publication365E.
2
6.Conclusions
1.Introduction
Inordertoobtainpatentprotectionforaninvention,apatentapplicationdescribing
andclaimingtheinventionmustfirstofallbefiledinthePatentOfficeofthedesired
territory.Theapplicationundergoesexaminationand,iftheinventionmeetsthe
criteriaofpatentability,acorrespondingpatentshouldbegrantedtogivethe
patenteeitsmonopolyright.
Onceapatentapplicationisfiled,itmustbekeptingoodstandingtopreservethe
prospectofobtainingpatentprotectionfortheinvention.Likewise,onceapatentis
granteditmustbekeptingoodstandingtobeenforceable.
InCanada,tokeepanapplicationorapatentingoodstanding,anapplicantor
patenteeisobligedtoperformcertainactions.Anapplicantisrequiredtopay
maintenancefees,requestexamination,replytoOfficeActionsandprovideformsor
certifieddocumentswithinthetimelimitsprescribedbythePatentAct
1andthe
PatentRules2.Apatentmusthaveitsmaintenancefeespaidwithincertaintime
limits.Whenanactionisnottakenbeforeagivendeadline,anapplicationora
patentfallsoutofgoodstandingandtherightstotheinventionmaybeirremediably
lost.
Ingeneral,theonusofcomplyingwiththerequirementsofthePatentActandRules
inthisregardisplacedontheshouldersofapplicantsandpatentees.Thishasthe
purposeofforcingapplicantsandpatenteestopursuetheirinterestsandmaintain
theirrightsinatimelyfashionaswellasclearing“deadwood”applicationsand
patentsfromtheintellectualpropertylandscape.Justasclearingrealdeadwood
opensupamountainpathforintrepidnaturegoers,eliminatingpatentsand
applicationsallowsentrepreneursandcompaniesgreaterfreedomandsuretyin
theircommercialendeavours.Clearingdeadwoodapplicationsandpatentsalso
lessenstheadministrativeandfinancialburdenonthePatentOffice,whichis
alreadyover-ladenwithasubstantialbuild-upofapplicationsandpatents.
ThePatentActandRulesalsoprovide,undercertaincircumstances,remedial
procedureswhenanapplicationorapatentfallstemporarilyoutofgoodstanding.
Someterritorieshavestatutoryprovisionstoallowtherestorationofpatentrights
wherecertaincriteriaaremet.Relativelyspeaking,theCanadianPatentActand
Rules,providestrictguidelinesandconsequencesforapplicationsandpatentsthat
falloutofgoodstanding.
1R.S.C.1985,c.P-4;hereinaftertheAct.2S.O.R.S./96-423;hereinaftertheRules
3
2.Outofgoodstanding–definitions
Eachterritoryhasitsownlexiconfordescribinganapplicationorapatentthathas
fallenoutofgoodstanding.Thequalifiers“abandoned”,“reinstated”,“dead”,
“lapsed”,“expired”,shouldthereforebeunderstoodonaterritory-by-territorybasis.
InCanada,thePatentActandRulesprovidesomestatutorydefinitions,whilethe
CanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)usesthesetermsinspecificways.
2.1“Abandoned”applications
Section73ofthePatentActpertainstotheabandonmentandreinstatementof
patentapplications.Abandonmentpertainstoapplicationsratherthantopatents.
Subsections73(1)and(2)prescribethereasonsforwhichanapplicationshallbe
deemedabandoned:
“(1)Anapplicationforapatentshallbedeemedabandonediftheapplicant
doesnot
(a)replyingoodfaithtoanyrequisitionmadebyanexaminerin
connectionwithanexamination,withinsixmonthsaftertherequisition
ismadeorwithinanyshorterperiodestablishedbytheCommissioner;
(b)complywithanoticepursuanttosubsection27(6)
(c)paythefeespayableundersection27.1,withinthetimeprovided
bytheregulations;
(d)makearequestforexaminationorpaytheprescribedfeeunder
subsection35(1)withinthetimeprovidedbytheregulations;
(e)complywithanoticegivenundersubsection35(2);or
(f)paytheprescribedfeesstatedtobepayableinanoticeof
allowanceofpatentwithinsixmonthsafterthedateofthenotice.
(2)Anapplicationshallalsobedeemedtobeabandonedinanyother
circumstancesthatareprescribed.”
Subsections27(6)and35(2)respectivelyallowCIPOtosendanoticerequiringthat
theapplicantcompleteitsapplicationorrequestexaminationwithinaspecifiedtime
limit.
Inaddition,section97ofthePatentRuleselaboratesonsubsection73(2)oftheAct:
“Forthepurposeofsubsection73(2)oftheAct,anapplicationisdeemedto
beabandonediftheapplicantdoesnotreplyingoodfaithtoanyrequisitionof
theCommissionerreferredtoinsection23,25or94withinthetimeprovided
inthatsection.”
4
Sections23,25and94ofthePatentRules,allowCIPOtorequesttheappointment
ofapatentagent,compliancewiththeActorRulesandcompletionofan
application,respectively.
Inpractice,anapplicationbecomesabandonedforeachfailuretoactandthusan
applicationmaybeabandonedformultiplereasonsifanapplicant,forexample,
doesnotrequestexaminationanddoesnotpayamaintenancefee.Moreregarding
“multipleabandonments”willbediscussedbelowinsection2.2.1.
Itisveryimportanttonotethatanapplicantdoesnotimmediatelyforfeitallrightsto
hisinventiononthedateofabandonment.Aswillbeexplainedbelow,thereisa
twelvemonthwindowfortheapplicanttoreinstateitsapplication.Anabandoned
applicationthereforegoesthroughaperiodoflimbo,akindofpatent-purgatory
duringwhichitisnolongeringoodstandingbutmaybereinstated.
Asanaside,sections148(1)and151to153(4)pertaintoabandonmentfor
applicationsfiledintheperiodbeginningonOctober1,1989andendingon
September30,1996,butwillnotbediscussedindetailinthispaper.
2.2“Reinstated”applications
Subsection73(3)providesthestatutorybasisforreinstatingapatentapplication.It
reads:
“(3)Anapplicationdeemedtobeabandonedunderthissectionshallbe
reinstatediftheapplicant
(a)makesarequestforreinstatementtotheCommissionerwithinthe
prescribedperiod;
(b)takestheactionthatshouldhavebeentakeninordertoavoid
abandonment;and
(c)paystheprescribedfeebeforetheexpirationoftheprescribed
period.”
The“prescribedfee”(currentlyareinstatementfeeof$200.00)andthe“prescribed
period”aredefinedinsection98ofthePatentRules,whichreads:
“98.Inorderforanapplicationdeemedtobeabandonedundersection73of
theActtobereinstated,theapplicantshall,inrespectofeachfailuretotake
actionreferredtoinsubsection73(1)oftheActorsection97,makearequest
forreinstatementtotheCommissioner,taketheactionthatshouldhavebeen
takeninordertoavoidthedeemedabandonmentandpaythefeesetoutin
item7ofScheduleII,beforetheexpiryofthetwelve-monthperiodafterthe
dateonwhichtheapplicationisdeemedtobeabandonedasaresultofthat
failure.”
5
Itisclearthatanapplicanthastwelvemonthstoreinstateanabandoned
application.Itisalsopossibletorequestanextensionofthereinstatementperiodby
payingafee,accordingtosubsection26(1)oftheRules,butonlyifthefeeispaid
beforethetwelvemonthperiodexpires.
2.2.1Multipleabandonments
Onepointofinterestisthatsection98oftheRulesprescribesthatthereinstatement
shallbemadeinrespectof“each”failuretotakeaction.Fromthisstatutorybasis,
CIPOhastakenthepositionthatapplicationsshallbe“multiplyabandoned”ifthere
ismorethanonefailuretotakeaction.
CIPO’sManualofPatentOfficePractice(MOPOP)
3givesanexampleofamultiple
abandonment,insection20.08:
“Forexample,anapplicationmaybecomeabandonedontwogroundsif
applicantfailstorespondtoanexaminer’srequisitionwithinthesixmonth
timelimitandalsofailstopayamaintenancefeethatfallsdueduringthetime
whentheapplicationwasabandoned;forthatapplicationtobereinstated,the
applicantmustrequestreinstatement,respondtotheexaminer’srequisition,
submitthemaintenancefeeandsubmittworeinstatementfeeswithintwelve
monthsoftheabandonmentforfailingtorespondtotheexaminer’s
requisition.Iftheapplicantattemptstoreinstatewithoutpayingthe
maintenancefeeandthesecondreinstatementfee,theapplicationwill
remainabandoned(forfailuretopaythemaintenancefee)butthetimelimit
forreinstatementwillbeextendedtotheendofthetwelve-monthperiodfrom
thedatethemaintenancefeewasdue.”
Inthisexample,theapplicationisabandonedforreasons(a)and(c)asseparately
stipulatedinsubsection73(1)oftheAct.Itisneverthelessamatterofdebateasto
whatexactlyconstitutesaseparate“failuretotakeaction”intermsofsection98and
thecorrespondingrequirementsforreinstatement.
Oneexampleofthisdebateconcerns“multipleabandonments”relatingtoasingle
OfficeActionemittedbyanexaminer.Forthepastfewyears,patentagentshave
notedOfficeActionscontainingtworequisitions:
(i)arequisitionaccordingtosubsection30(2)oftheRulesaskingthe
applicanttoamendtheapplicationwithinsixmonths;and
3CANADIANINTELLECTUALPROPERTYOFFICE,ManualofPatentOfficePractice(Ottawa,Industry
Canada,1998),Updated:April2006.
6
(ii)arequisitionaccordingtosection29oftheRulesaskingtheapplicantto
supplycertaininformationonexistingcorrespondingapplicationsorpatents
filedinotherterritories,usuallyinEuropeandtheUnitedStates.
Bothoftheserequisitionsfallunderthesinglesubsection73(1)(a)oftheAct,butare
atthesametimebasedintwoseparatesections30(2)and29oftheRules.By
treatingsuchrequisitionsseparately,CIPOseemstobegivingsection98ofthe
Rulesacertaininterpretation.CIPOseemstointerpret“eachfailuretotakeaction”
aseachnon-responsetoarequisitionbasedinaseparatesubsectionoftheRules.
Accordingly,CIPOseemstointerpretthatsection98requiresaseparate
reinstatementforeachrequisitionmadebytheexaminerthatisbasedonaseparate
subsectionoftheRules.
Itisyettobeseen,however,howacourtwouldinterpretsection98oftheRulesin
thisregard.Anargumentcouldbemadethatsinceanexaminer’srequisitionsina
singleOfficeActionfallunderthesinglesubsection73(1)(a),theapplicantshouldbe
requiredtoadequatelyreplytotheOfficeActionavoidasingleabandonment.
InareportdatedApril23,2004,addressedtotheCommissionerofPatents,the
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada(IPIC)letitspositionon“multiple
abandonments”beknown.IPICassertedthatthepositiontakenbytheCIPOis
“contrarytoaliteralandpurposiveconstructionofSections73(1)and73(2)ofthe
PatentAct,Rule98ofthePatentRulesandthepracticeoftheOfficeandPatent
Agentsfordecades”(p.1).
IPICarguedthatthewordingofsection98oftheRulesprescribesthatan
applicationisabandonedifonlyonerequisitionisnotrespondedtoandnotthatan
applicationisabandonedmultiplyforeachrequisitioninanOfficeActionnot
respondedto.Theyadvancedthattheexpression“eachfailuretotakeaction”of
section98referstoseparatesubsections(a)through(f)ofarticle73(1).
IPICalsopresentedvariousotherpointsincludingtheprohibitivecostsofmultiple
reinstatementfeesandthediscouragementofsmallandforeigninventorsfrom
continuingprosecutionofpatentapplicationsduetocostlyandcomplicated
maintenancerequirements.
IPICfurtherarguedthatthepositionofCIPOisinconsistentwithCanadianpatent
prosecutionpracticeinCanada.Inthe1989,1996and1998versionsofthe
MOPOP,itisstatedthattoreinstateapatentapplication,theapplicantmustrequest
reinstatement,taketheactionthatshouldhavebeentakenandpaytherequiredfee
(seesection15.04.01in1989and20.08in1996and1998).Thecurrentversionof
theMOPOPspecifiesthatanapplicationmaybecomeabandonedformorethan
onefailuretoact,butitissilentastowhetheranapplicantmustreinstatethe
applicationforeachrequisitionmadebyanExaminerinasingleOfficeActionthatis
notrepliedtobyanapplicant.
7
Inaddition,onMarch9,2007,IPICpublishedanotherpaperentitled“TheKeyRole
oftheIPOffice–RecommendationsforCIPO’sStrategicPlan”(hereinaftercalled
“IPIC2007StrategicPlan”)inwhichtheymadesomerecommendationsonthetopic
ofreliefforunintentionalorunavoidableabandonments.MoreregardingIPIC’srelief
recommendationswillbediscussedbelowinsection2.6.
2.2.2NoticeofAbandonment
ItisthegeneralpracticeoftheCIPOtosenda“NoticeofAbandonment”ifan
applicationfallsoutofgoodstanding.
TheMOPOPcurrentlystatesthat:
“anoticeofabandonmentwillnormallybesentbytheOfficewhenan
applicationisdeemedabandoned.However,althoughanoticeof
abandonment(noticethatthepatentisabouttolapse)hasbeensentina
particularcase,inshouldnot
beassumedthatitwillbesentineverycase.
SuchnoticesaresentasacourtesyonlyandthePatentOfficetakesno
responsibilityforfailuretosendanoticeinaparticularsituation.Ifan
applicationisdeemedabandonedformorethanonefailuretoact,additional
willbesentforeachfailureduringthetimeperiodwithinwhichtheapplicant
canreinstatetheapplication.”(MOPOP20.07,author’sunderline)
Normally,ifanapplicantreceivesaNoticeofAbandonment,itcandecideto
reinstatetheapplicationwithinthetimelimit.Asignificantproblemarises,however,
whentheNoticegoesastrayandtheapplicantisunawareofthebadstatusofits
application.Suchsituationsoftenleadtotheunintentionalexpiryofthetwelve
monthtimelimitforreinstatement.
2.2.3Practicalusesofabandonmentprocedures
Aninterestingaspectof“abandonment”inCanadianpracticeisthatitissometimes
usedforperformingpracticaltasks.Forinstance,accordingtosubsection73(4)of
theAct,ifanapplicantwishestoamendanapplicationafterallowancebutbefore
thefinalfeehasbeenpaid,itmaylettheapplicationfallabandoned(forfailureto
paythefinalfee)anduponreinstatementsubmitthefinalfee,thereinstatementfee
andanamendment,totherebycontinueprosecution.
Subsection73(4)oftheActreads:
“73(4)Anapplicationthathasbeenabandonedpursuanttoparagraph(1)(f)
andreinstatedissubjecttoamendmentandfurtherexamination.”
8
Temporaryabandonmentmaybeusedtogiveanapplicantadditionaltimetomake
decisionsandtakeaction.However,abandonmentshouldbetreatedasan
“extensiontool”onlyinsofarastheapplicantkeepsclosetrackofwhenandhow
reinstatementmustoccur.Thoughabandonmentofanapplicationprovidesa
healthyextensionwindowfordecisionmaking,extremecareshouldbetakenin
reinstatingtheapplication.Abotchedreinstatement,evenifperformedingoodfaith,
hascatastrophicconsequences,forfailuretoreinstateanabandonedapplication
withinthetwelvemonthwindowresultsinthedeathoftheapplication.
2.3“Dead”applications
ThisstrikingtermisnotfoundinthePatentActorRules,butisratheremployedby
CIPOinrelationtopatentapplicationsthatweredeemedtobeabandonedandwere
notreinstatedwithintheprescribedtimeperiod.A“dead”applicationmayalsobe
referredtoas“irrevocablyabandoned”.The“AdministrativeStatus”tableonCIPO’s
websitereferstosuchapplicationsasbeing“dead”.
Itisextremelydifficulttoreinstateorotherwiseresurrectdeadapplications.CIPO
hasrepeatedlystatedthatitlacksauthoritytoreinstateapplicationsonceitdeems
themtobedeadandCanadiancourtshavedecidedthatthePatentActandRules
areclearandunforgivingwhenthetimeforreinstatinganapplicationhasbeen
exceeded.
Therepercussionsofmissingthereinstatementdeadlinearethereforecatastrophic
andseeminglyallowlittlerecourse.Moreregardingspecificcaseswhere
applicationsdiedbeyondreinstatementarediscussedbelowinsection3.
2.4“Expired”patents
Thistermrelatestoissuedpatentsthathavebeenproperlymaintainedbuthaverun
theircourse.Section44oftheActsays,foranapplicationfiledonorafterOctober
1,1989,“thetermlimitedforthedurationofthepatentistwentyyearsfromthefiling
date”,whichistosaythatthepatent“expires”twentyyearsfromitsfilingdate.
Accordingtosubsection45(1),apatentexpiresseventeenyearsfromitsissuedate
ifitwasfiledbeforeOctober1,1989.
TherearealsoprovisionsintheActstipulatingthatthetermofapatentisthelonger
oftwentyyearsfromthefilingdateandseventeenyearsfromissuance,ifthe
applicationwasfiledbeforeOctober1,1989andthepatentwasstillinforceonJuly
12,2001
4.
4Seesubsection45(2)oftheAct.
9
Themonopolyrightconferredbyapatenteventually“expires”andtheinvention
thereafterbecomespartofthepublicdomain.Itmayalsobenotedthatthe
“AdministrativeStatus”tableonCIPO’swebsitereferstosuchpatentsasbeing
“expired”.
2.5“Lapsed”patents
Thistermisreferredtointhetitleofsubsection46(2)oftheAct,whichreads:
“Lapseoftermifmaintenancefeesnotpaid
46(2)Wherethefeespayableundersubsection(1)arenotpaidwithinthe
timeprovidedbytheregulations,thetermlimitedforthedurationofthepatent
shallbedeemedtohaveexpiredattheendofthattime.”
Asstatedinsection20.09oftheMOPOP,alapsedpatentisonewhichnolonger
givesanypatentrightstothepatenteebecausetherequiredmaintenancefeeswere
notpaidintime.
Moreregardingthisisdiscussedinrelationtospecificcasesinsection4.
2.6“Resurrection”ofdeadapplicationsorlapsedpatents
“Resurrection”,asdiscussedinthispaper,shouldbeunderstoodtomeanbringinga
deadapplicationoralapsedpatentbackintogoodstanding.Thistermhasbeen
usedtoreinforcethenotionthatrecoveringsuchlostpatentrightsisextremely
difficult.Canadiancourtshaveusedotherterms–“reincarnation”,“resuscitation”–
torefertothisdifficultprocedure.
OnemajorobstacletoresurrectionisthatCIPOhasnodiscretiontotakeinto
accountunintentionalorunavoidablemishapsresultinginadeadapplicationora
lapsedpatent.
VariousCanadiancourtshaveconsideredthequestionofresurrectingan
applicationorpatentwhenthedeathorlapseoccurredunintentionallyorbymistake
but,aswillbeseen,thecircumstancesinthesecasesdidnotenabletheCourtsto
justifyresurrection.
Inaddition,otherinterestedorganisationssuchasIPIChavemadecertain
commentsandsuggestionsthatsomemeasureofreliefshouldbeprovidedforsuch
catastrophicyetaccidentalerrors.IntheIPIC2007StrategicPlan,IPICsuggests
thatresurrectioncouldincludearequirementforanaffidavitexplaininghowanerror
aroseandthetimelystepstakentoremedyit,coupledwithasubstantialfee.IPIC
10
believesthatthiswouldprovidetheneededlevelofreliefwhilediscouragingabuse
andnotposinganundueadministrativeloadonCIPO.
3.Attemptedresurrectionofdeadapplications
Therehavebeensomehard-foughtandcreativeattemptstoresurrectdeadpatent
applications.
ArecentdecisionbytheCanadianFederalCourtofAppealsinDutchIndustriesLtd.
v.Canada(TheCommissionerofPatents)
5,(referredtohereafteras“Dutch
Industries”)shookupsomepresuppositionsregardingtheconsequencesof
improperpaymentofpatentfeesinCanadaandunderlinedthenotionofstrict
adherencetotheActratherthandeferencetothenormalpracticeofCIPO.Dutch
Industriesprovidesanappropriatebackdroptotheissueofabandonmentinrelation
topatentvalidityandCIPO’slimitedlegalauthority.
3.1DutchIndustries
InCanada,areductioninthepatentfeespayabletoCIPOisofferedtoapplicants
whoqualifyasa“SmallEntity”,whichispresentlydefinedinsection2ofthePatent
Actasacompanyhavinglessthan50employeesoraUniversity.
Ithadbeenthepracticeofmanyapplicantsandpatentownerstopaypatentfeesin
accordancewiththegrowthorreductionoftheircompany.Inaddition,applicants
andownersoftenmadeso-called“topup”paymentswhentheyhadmadeafee
paymentatthesmallentityratebutsubsequentlywishedtocorrectthatpaymentto
thelargeentity.Moreover,itwastheregularpracticeofCIPOtoacceptthese“top
up”payments.
InDutchIndustries,theCourtruledthatentitysizeisdeterminedonlyonce,atthe
momentthepatentsystemisfirst“engaged”.TheCourtalsoruledthatCIPOlacked
thelegalauthoritytoacceptany“topup”payments.Consequently,theCourt
determinedthatthefailuretopaythesufficientamountoffeesistantamounttonon-
paymentofthosefeesandcanresultintheirremediablelapseofapatentorthe
deathofanapplication.
AsthisdecisionsetoutaprecedentpotentiallyinvalidatingthousandsofCanadian
patentsandapplicationsonatechnicality,BillC-29quicklycameintoforceFebruary
2006,toamendthePatentActbyintroducinganewsection78.6,whichmadeit
possibletomake“correctivepayments”ofofficialfees.
5[2003]4F.C.67(F.C.A.);hereiafterDutchIndustries
11
Section78.6appearstohaveprovidedpatentholdersaone-time-onlywindow,
whichspannedfromFebruary1,2006,toFebruary1,2007,toensurethattheir
patentsandapplicationsareingoodstandingforhavingpaidsufficientfees.Aswill
beseenbelowinsection3.3,section78.6oftheActdoesnotallowapatentholder
toretroactivelypayfeesthatweremissedentirely;rather,itpermitscorrective
paymentsoffeesthatwerepaidontimebutmistakenlyatthesmallentityrate.
BillC-29,bymeansofsection78.6oftheAct,thusenabled“statutoryresurrection”
ofapplicationsandpatentsthatwouldhaveotherwisebeenconsidereddeador
lapsed.However,thestatutorywindowforperformingsuchlegislativeresurrection
havingclosed,patentholderswishingtoresurrecttheirapplicationsorpatentsmay
findthemselveswithnoclearbasis,statutoryorotherwise,forrecuperatingtheir
rights.
3.2Eibav.TheAttorneyGeneralofCanada
6
TheapplicantMr.Eiba,aresidentofGermany,hadfiledanationalphasePCT
applicationinCanada.
Annualmaintenancefeespursuanttosection27.1ofthePatentActwerepayableto
CIPOandarequestforexaminationoftheapplicationhadtobefiledwithinseven
yearsoftheinternationalfilingdatepursuanttosubsection64(2)oftheRules.
Between1997and2001,therequiredannuitieswerepaid,butfortheyearending
onJanuary27,2002,theannuitywasnotpaid.Inaddition,therequestfor
examinationwasnotfiledwithintheprescribedtimelimit.
Consequently,theapplicationwasdeemedabandonedontwogrounds:firstly,for
failuretopayayearlymaintenancefeepursuanttoparagraph73(1)(c)oftheAct
andsecondly,forfailuretorequestexaminationandpaytheprescribedfees,
pursuanttoparagraph73(1)(d)oftheAct.Foreachabandonment,therewasa
twelve-monthreinstatementperiodavailablepursuanttosubsection73(3)oftheAct.
Theapplicantarguedthathesubmittedtworequestsforreinstatement,addressing
therespectivegroundsofthedeemedabandonment.However,theCommissioner
apparentlyreceivedonlyonerequestforreinstatementregardingtherequestfor
examination.Afterprocessingthissinglereinstatement,theCommissionersentthe
applicantan »AcknowledgementofRequestforExamination »notice,statingthatthe
requestforexaminationandprescribedfeehadbeenreceived,andthatexamination
“willtakeplaceinduecourse”.Therewasnothinginthatnoticetoindicatethestatus
oftheapplicationanditappearsfromtheevidencethattheapplicant spatentagents
assumedfromthisnoticethattheapplicationwasingoodstanding.
62004FC250.
12
Theapplicant’spatentagentscontinuedtopaythemaintenancefeesthatweredue
fortheapplication,believingthattheapplicationwasproperlyreinstated.Inmid-
March2003,CIPOsetoutinwritingitsrefusalofthe2003annuityonthegrounds
thatthepaymentsforreinstatementandmaintenancefor2002hadnotbeen
receivedandthattheapplicationwasdeemedirrevocablyabandoned.CIPOrefused
toacceptanyfurtherannuitypayments,maintainingthattheapplicationwasdead.
Theapplicantclaimedthatthetworeinstatementsubmissionswerehandedoverto
thepatentfirm sfileroom,buttherewasnoevidencethatthesubmissionswere
thereafterentrustedfordeliverytoCIPO,norwasthereanyevidencethatthefirm
tookanyactivestepstoascertainwhetherthesubmissionswereinfactdeliveredor
thattherelatedfeeswerepaid.CIPOclearlyhadreceivedthesubmissionpertaining
toparagraph73(1)(d)ofthePatentAct,buttherewasnorecordofthesecond
submission.
Beforethecourt,theapplicantarguedthreemainpoints:(i)thatCIPOcreateda
legitimateexpectationthattheapplicationwasingoodstanding;(ii)thatCIPO
declinedtoexerciseitsdiscretionaryjurisdictionbynotinvestigatingwhetherthelost
reinstatementsubmissionwasCIPO’sfault;and(iii)thatthedeathofthisapplication
failedtoadvancetheobjectofthePatentActsinceabandonmentprovisionsare
meanttoeliminatedeadwoodpatentapplicationswhentheapplicanthaslost
interestinitsapplication.
Regardingpoint(i),theapplicantarguedthathehada“legitimateexpectation”that
certainproceduresand“usualpractices”ofCIPOwouldbefollowed.Inthatsense,
sinceCIPOsentanoticestatingthatexamination“willtakeplaceinduecourse”,
therebyarguablyinvitingtheinferencethattheapplicationwasingoodstanding,the
applicantexpectedthatthetwosubmissionshadbeenreceivedandprocessed.
Regardingpoint(ii),theapplicantarguedthatCIPO’srefusaltoreviewwhetherit
waswhollyorpartiallyatfaultinthelossofthesecondsubmissioniscontraryto
naturaljustice.
Regardingpoint(iii),theapplicantsubmittedanaffidavitevidenceshowingthatit
wasnotintendedfortheapplicationtogoabandoned.
Therespondent(TheAttorneyGeneralofCanada)indicatedthatthereisa
mandatoryrequirementtopayfeesatparticulartimes,amandatoryconsequence
forfailuretopay,andneithertheCommissionernortheCourthasjurisdictionto
modify,setasideorignoretheseprovisions.Therespondentnotedthatthe
applicantdidnotpresentanydirectevidencethatthedocumentationandpayment
forthereinstatementwereinfacttransmittedandreceivedbyCIPO.
13
TheCourtstartedbydeterminingifajudicialreviewwasavailableinthepresent
case,basingitsdecisionlargelyonF.Hoffmann-LaRocheAGv.Canada
(CommissionerofPatents),whichisdiscussedbelowinsection4.1.
Thecourtthenassessedwhetherthedoctrineoflegitimateexpectationswouldbe
applicablereflectingproceduralfairnessinthiscase.TheCourtdecidedthatthe
noticeof“AcknowledgementofRequestforExamination”doesnotcreatea
legitimateexpectationthatanapplicationisfullyreinstated.TheCourtstatedthat
thePatentActisclearwheretheapplicantmustbeheldresponsiblefornotallowing
hisapplicationtobecomeirrevocablyabandoned.TheCourtalsonotedthatifthis
argumentwereacceptedforthepresentcase,thenapositiveobligationwouldbe
placedonCIPOtoinformapplicants,onitsowninitiative,ofanydeficiencyinthe
materialsfiledinthereinstatementprocess.
Thecourtalsonotedthatitwasclearthatthereinstatementstepstakenbythe
applicant’spatentagent“werenotcompletedandtheagentsdidnotensurethatthe
requestsforreinstatementonbothgroundshadinfactbeenmadetothe
Commissioner”buthratherreliedonCIPO’sinformalpractice,totheirdetriment.
3.3Wicksv.Canada(TheCommissionerofPatents)
7
Mr.HarryWickswastheapplicantforsixpatentapplicationsinCanada.Onlyoneof
theapplicationswillbediscussedasitislargelyrepresentativeofthefactsinthis
case.Theapplicantfiledapplication‘102atthelargeentityrate,butsubsequently
paidvariousannuitiesatthesmallentityrate.Theapplicantfailedtopaythe7
th
annuityandCIPOissuedaNoticeofAbandonment.Thestatutorytwelve-month
periodforreinstatementelapsed,buttheapplicantcontinuedtosubmitpaymentof
annuitieswithlatefees.CIPOcontinuedtoinformtheapplicantthattheapplication
wasdeadandnoannuitieswerepayableinitsrepect.
Theapplicant’sarguments,whichthecourtcalled“innovativeandintriguing”,are
basedinaninterpretationofsubsection78.6(1)oftheAct.Theapplicantasserted
thatthissubsectionallowsthe“reincarnation”ofdeadpatentapplications.Insum,
theapplicantarguedthatbecausethe‘102applicationwasfiledasalargeentity,it
“died”whentheapplicantpaidthesmallentityannuities,whichoughttohavebeen
paidatthelargeentityrate.Relyingontheretroactiveeffectofsubsection78.6(1)
asdecidedinJohnson&JohnsonInc.v.ArterialCascularEngineeringCanadaInc.
8
theapplicantarguedthattheapplicationcouldbereinstatedforitsinsufficient
paymentsanditsmissedpayments.
72007FC2228(2006),351N.R.87(F.C.A.),
14
Thecourtrejectedthisargument,statingthatsubsection78.6doesnotpermita
remedyfornon-paymentoffees,andthattheapplicantcannotbenefitfromit.
4.Attemptedresurrectionsoflapsedpatents
Therehavealsobeenvariousattemptstoresurrectlapsedpatents.
4.1Hoffman-LaRochev.Canada(TheCommissionerofPatents)
ThiscasewasfirstruledonbytheFederalCourt,whosedecisionwassubsequently
affirmedbytheFederalCourtofAppeal.
4.1.1FederalCourt
9
JudgeO’ReilleyoftheFederalCourtconsideredthiscaseandrenderedhisdecision
November25,2003.
Thiscaseinvolvedajudicialreviewinwhichtheapplicant,Hoffmann-LaRoche,
soughttopreserveare-issuedpatentwhichhadlapsedfornon-paymentofthe
annualmaintenancefees.Hoffmann-LaRocheacknowledgedthatitfailed,through
innocenterror,topayitsannualfeesonthere-issuedpatent.
Subsection46(2)ofthePatentActrequiresthepatentholderstopayannual
maintenancefeesandiftherequiredfeeisnotpaidontime,thepatentholdercan
stillmakeapaymentupuntiloneyearaftertheduedate,alongwithalatefee.
Usually,CIPOnotifiespatentholdersiftheyhavemissedaduedate.
Inthiscase,bothHoffmann-LaRocheandCIPOmadeavarietyoferrorsin
docketingthepatentandincommunicationwitheachother.Hoffmann-LaRoche
wronglyclassifiedthere-issuedpatentasanewpatent,andthereforebelievedthat
nofeewasdueonthefirstanniversaryofthe“new”patent.Inreality,however,it
wasare-issuedpatentandafeewasthereforedueonthepatent seighth
anniversary.
CIPOnormallysendsoutanoticewhenpatentholdersmissadeadline.Inthiscase,
whenCIPOcommunicatedwithHoffmann-LaRoche,almostallofthose
communicationscontainederrors.Intheend,Hoffmann-LaRochewasnotifiedthat
thereissuepatentwasnotingoodstandingaftertheirremediablelapseofthe
patent.
92003FC1381
15
TheCommissionerarguedthatsubsection46(2)ofthePatentActisclear,
mandatoryandfinalandthereisnobasisforjudicialreviewduetoitsstrict
provisions.AsforHoffmann-LaRoche,itarguedthatthePatentActmustbereadin
lightofitspurposeandcontext,aswellasthecommonlawprinciplesoffairness,
legitimateexpectations,equityandestoppel.
Oneofthemainquestionsatbarwastodetermineifajudicialreviewshouldbe
allowed.TheCommissionersubmittedthathehadnotmadeany“decision”or
“order”,andthattherewasthereforenofoundationforanapplicationforjudicial
review.ReferringtothePfizerInc.v.Canada(CommissionerofPatents)
10case,the
Courtdeterminedthatajudicialreviewisavailableinrespectofany“decision,order,
actorproceedingofafederalboard,commissionorothertribunal”encompassing
theCommissioner snoticetoHoffmann-LaRoche.
ThenextquestionwastodecideiftherewasalegalbasisfortheCourttoprovide
relieftotheapplicant,despitetheapparentlystricttermsofthePatentAct.
Hoffmann-LaRocheraisedanumberoflegalgrounds,notwithstandingitsfailureto
paytherequiredmaintenancefees.Hoffmann-LaRochepresentedthefollowing
argumentsandtheCourtaddressedthemasfollows:
4.1.1.1Fairness
Hoffmann-LaRochearguedthattheCommissionerhadadutytogiveitnotice
beforehemadeadeterminationthatithadfailedtocomplywithsubsection46(1).
Hoffmann-LaRochesuggestedthatanoticeisrequiredaspartofthe
Commissioner sdutytotreatpatentholdersfairly.TheCourtrefusedthisargument
indicatingthattheusualpurposeofanoticeistoallowapersontomake
representationstothedecisionmakerbeforeanadversedeterminationismade
againstthatpersonher.Inthiscase,however,theapplicantwantedthe
Commissionertobeobligedtogivepatentholdersnoticeastothestatusoftheir
maintenancefees.Sucharequirementwouldbeatoddswiththeclearlegislative
intenttoplacetheburdenofcompliancesquarelyonpatentholders.Inotherwords,
theCommissionerdoesnothavethedutytonotifypatenteesbeforetheirpatent
lapsesbecausethePatentActsaysthatthepatentlapsesautomaticallywhenthe
deadlineismissed.
4.1.1.2Legitimateexpectation
Hoffmann-LaRochesubmittedthatCIPOhaslongprovidednoticestopatent
holderswhomisstheinitialdeadlineforpayingamaintenancefees.Itarguesthat
thesecircumstancesgiverisetoadutytoprovidenoticeaccordingtothedoctrineof
10(1999),1C.P.R.(4th)200(F.C.T.D.)
16
legitimateexpectations.Thisdoctrinerequiresthatthedecisionmaker sconduct
clearlysuggeststhataffectedpersonswillbegivenachancetomakesubmissions
beforeadecisionwillbemade.TheCourtwasoftheviewthatoneofthenecessary
conditionsofthisdoctrinewasabsent:“theCommissionercouldnothaveconveyed
theimpressionthatapatentholder’sinterestswouldnotbeimpingedwithoutnotice
andanopportunitytomakerepresentations”
11.Inotherwords,thoughHoffmannLa-
RocheplacedrelianceonCIPO’sgeneralpractice,thisisnotenoughtocreatea
correspondingdutyonthepartoftheCommissioner.TheCommissionerhasa
ratherlimitedroleinrelationtomaintenancefees.
4.1.1.3Equity
Hoffmann-LaRochealsoarguedthattheCourthastheauthoritytoprovidereliefon
groundsofequityanditmayextendthetimelimitforpaymentofmaintenancefees.
TheCourtnotedthatitcangrantequitablerelieftopreventtheforfeitureofproperty
underaprivatecontractsuchasalease,butthesituationisentirelydifferentwhen
theforfeitureresultsfromastatutoryrule.TheCourtexplainedthatifitwereto
extendthetimeforpayingthemaintenancefees,itwouldbesubstitutingthe
deadlineenactedbyParliamentwithitsown.TheCourtstatedthatthestatuteis
clearanditdoesnothavethepowertorelieveagainststatutorypenalties.
4.1.1.4Estoppel
Hoffmann-LaRochefurthersubmittedthattheCommissionershouldbeprevented
fromdeclaringthatitspatenthadlapsedbecauseCIPOacceptedalesseramount.
Hoffmann-LaRochesubmittedthattheCommissioneronlysendsoutnoticeswhen
deadlinesaremissed,notwhenpaymentshavebeenpaidontime,andthatthe
Commissioner’ssilencegaveitanassuranceofcomplianceonwhichitrelied.The
Courtstatedthatwherethegoverningstatuteislessstrict,courtsmayrecognizean
estoppel.However,theCourtconcludedthatthereisnoleewayinthePatentAct,
quotingLordMaughaminMaritimeElectricCo.v.GeneralDiariesLtd.
12“the
obligationtoobeypositivelawismorecompellingthanadutynottonottocause
injurybyinadvertence”.
ThoughtheCourtrecognizedthatthatthemaintenancefeeregimeiscomplicated,
theriskofinnocenterrorsisgreat,andthefailuretocomplyhas »catastrophic »
consequences,itfoundnolegalbasisonwhichtograntanyrelieftoHoffmann-La
Roche.
11Hoffmann-LaRochev.Canada(CommissionerofPatents)2000FC1381,atparagraph37.12[1937]1D.L.R.609(J.C.P.C.):
17
4.1.2FederalCourtofAppeal13
JudgeLétourneauwritingfortheCourtsawnoerrorintheFederalCourt’sdecision
warrantingintervention.TheCourtsummedupthematterbysayingthatHoffmann-
LaRochewronglyinterpretedthattheCommissioner“madeadecision”withrespect
tothefactthatthemaintenancefeeshadnotbeenpaidandthatthepatentlapsed,
andthattheCommissioner“simplyinformedtheappellantthatthefeeshadnot
beenpaidanddrewitsattentiontothelegalconsequencesthatfollowfrom
subsection46(2)oftheAct”.Inotherwords,therightsofHoffmannLa-Rochewere
affectedbytheoperationoftheActandthecourtscannotresuscitateapatentthat
theActclearlysayshaslapsed.
4.2P.E.FusionLLCvs.TheAttorneyGeneralofCanada
14
Inthiscase,theCommissionerhadrefusedtoreviveP.E.FusionLLC’spatent
whichhadlapsedforfailuretopaytherequiredmaintenancefees.
Theapplicant,P.E.FusionLLC,receivedthepatentownershipfromtheoriginal
owner,Mr.GeorgeRakes,andsuchrecordofownershipwasregisteredwiththe
PatentOfficeinlate2000.Aftermanyfailedcorrespondencesbetweentheoriginal
owner,itslawfirmrepresentativeReedSmithandtheapplicant,regardingthe
paymentofmaintenancefees,theapplicantinformedReedSmiththatallfuture
correspondencewastobedirectedtoit.Throughsomeadministrative
miscommunications,theapplicantsentachequetoReedSmithbelievingitwasfor
the10thannuity,butitwasactuallyforanerroneouslyappliedcharge.ReedSmith
wasundertheassumptionthattheyweretoremovethepatentfromtheirdocket,
thereforeinstructingtheirCanadianrepresentative,Smart&Biggar,toremovethe
patentfromtheirpaymentrecords.
Upontheexpiryofthetwelvemonthgraceperiodtopaythemissedannuity,the
patentlapsed.Afterdiscoveringwhathadoccurred,theapplicant sagentswroteto
theCommissionerontwooccasionsrequestingtomakea“correction”in
accordancewithsection8oftheAct,whichreadsasfollows:
“8.ClericalerrorsinanyinstrumentofrecordinthePatentOfficedonot
invalidatetheinstrument,buttheymaybecorrectedundertheauthorityofthe
Commissioner.”
TheCommissionerrefusedto“correct”thepatent,assertingthatsection8pertains
onlytoaclericalerrorthathadbeeninsertedinaninstrumentofrecordinCIPO,
132005FCA399.142004FC645.
18
andthePatentActdidnotprovideauthoritytorevivealapsedpatentpursuanttoa
section8request.
Thereweretwoargumentsatbar:todetermineiftheCommissionererred,firstlyin
failingtoapplysection8ofthePatentAct,andsecondlyinrefusingtocorrectthe
errorpursuanttoanyinherentjurisdiction.
BeforetheCourt,theapplicantarguedthatthe“clericalerror”originatedfromthe
erroneouschargeappliedbyReedSmithtotheaccountoftheoriginalownerwhich
resultedinaseriousofeventsleadingtheapplicanttobelievethatthe10th
maintenancefeehadbeenpaidandthepatentwasinadvertentlyallowedtolapse.
Therespondent(theCommissioner)submittedthatsection8isnotintendedto
applytosituationswheretheclericalerroroccurredsomewhereotherthaninthe
instrumentofrecordheldinCIPOandthattheerrorinthiscaseappearedtohave
beencausedbytheapplicant sown,oritsagents,internalmanagementofits
affairs.TheCourtpointedoutthatsection8speaksof“clericalerrorsinany
instrumentofrecordinthePatentOffice”andwhethertheapplicant sinadvertent
failuretosubmittheprescribedmaintenancefeeswithintheprescribedtimeframe
wasduetoitsoritsagent sclericalerrororotherwiseisimmaterialtotheapplication
ofsection8.
TheapplicantsubmittedthattheCommissionerfailedtoacknowledgeaninherent
jurisdictiontocorrectanerrorwhichistheresultofa“genuine”mistakeonthepart
ofapatenteeoritsagent.TheCommissionerarguedthatithasnoexpresspoweror
discretiontorevivealapsedpatentwhereapatenthasexpiredduetoamisfortune
inthepaymentofamaintenancefees.TheCourtdidnotaccepttheapplicant’s
argumentsandpresentedfourpointstosupportitsdecision:
1)Theword“shall”insection46(2)ofthePatentActandsection182oftheRules
presentsamandatoryrequirementanddoesnotindicatethatthereisdiscretion
onthepartoftheCommissioner.
2)ReferringtotheHoffmann-LaRocheAG.andEibacases,theCourtreiterated
thattheCommissionerdoesnothavetheauthority,pursuanttothePatentActor
Rules,toextendthedeadlineforpaymentoffees,toofferreliefagainstthe
consequencesofunderpayingamaintenancefees,ortomodifyorwaive
requirementswithregardstothemandatorypaymentoffees.Inaddition,the
CourtreferredtoananalogousFederalCourtofAppealtrademarkdecisionin
Auheuser-Busch,Inc.v.CarlingO’KeefeBreweriesofCanadaLimitedand
RegistrarofTradeMarks
15,wheretheCourtheldthattheRegistrarof
Trademarksdidnothaveaninherentpowertograntcertainreliefwhensuch
authoritycouldnotbefoundthroughexpressstatutorylanguageorbynecessary
implicationfromtheprovisionsofthestatute.
15[1983]2F.C.71(C.A.),
19
3)TheCommissionerdoesnotpossessaninherentjurisdictiontowaiveorbend
therulesinrelationtothetimelimitsforannualmaintenancefees,orinrelation
totheconsequencesforfailingtopaysuchfeeswithinthetimelimits.
4)ThepropositionoffindinginherentjurisdictionoftheCommissionertocorrect
“genuine”mistakesisaconceptfraughtwithdifficulty.Parliamentspecifically
omittedtheinclusionofanyreliefprovisionsintheschemeofthepaymentof
maintenancefees,beyondtheallowableoneyearreinstatementperiod,andhas
notvestedtheCommissionerortheCourtwithanydiscretiontocorrect
mistakes.
Forthesereasons,theCourtdidnotfindanybasistoprovidearemedy,while
acknowledgingthatitwasveryunfortunatethatasimplemistakeresultedintheloss
oftheapplicant srights.
5.Abrieflookacrosstheborder:USpractice
TheUnitedStatespatentsystemhasavarietyofdifferentfeatureswhenitcomesto
thegoodstandingofapplicationsandpatents.
Firstly,therearenomaintenancefeestobepaidinrespectofapendingapplication,
thoughtherearethreemaintenancefeesforgrantedpatentsthatmustbepaidat3
½,7½and11½yearsfromthedateofthepatent.
Secondly,examinationisnotrequestedbytheapplicantbutratheroccurs
automaticallyonafirst-come-first-servedbasisfromthefilingdate,unlessan
acceleratedexaminationisrequestedandpaidfor.
Thirdly,theterm“abandoned”doesnothavethesamemeaninginrespectofa
pendingUSapplicationasitdoesinCanada.Thereareretroactiveextensionsof
timefordelaysinrespondingtoanOfficeAction,forinstance,butifanon-
extendabledeadlineisexceededandtheapplicationbecomesabandoneditcan
onlybe“revived”(thequasi-equivalentto“resurrected”)oncertaingrounds.
5.1Petitionrequestingwithdrawalofholdingofabandonment
IntheUS,anapplicantmaycontendunder37CFR
161.181(a)thatanapplicationis
notinfactabandoned.Thismayhappenwherethereisadisagreementover
sufficiencyofreply,forexamplewhentheapplicantfailedtoreceiveanOffice
16CodeofFederalRegulations
20
Action,ortimelymailedareplytoanOfficeAction.Thismayalsohappenwhere
thereisadisagreementastocontrollingdates.
5.2Petitionforrevivalforfailuretotimelytakeaction
37CFR1.137providesfortherevivalofanabandonedapplicationduetothefailure
totimelyreplytoanofficerequirementinaprovisionalapplication,prosecutea
nonprovisionalapplication,paytheissuefeeforadesignorutilityapplicationorpay
anoutstandingbalanceoftheissuefee[seeMPEP
17§711.03(c)(II)].
ThebasisforthisPetitioncanbeeitherthatdelaywas“unavoidable”or
“unintentional”.
5.2.1Unavoidable
Topetitionforrevivalduetoanunavoidableabandonment,e.g.aPostOffice
mistake,37CFR1.137(a)requiresthefollowingfromanapplicantorpatentee:
1)therequiredreply;
2)thefeeforrevivingthe“unavoidable”delay(1.17(l))($500/$250);
3)ashowingthattheentiredelaywasunavoidable;and
4)aterminaldisclaimer,ifrequiredunder1.137(d).
The“showing”requiredbytheunavoidablebasisneedstoshowthatreasonable
carewastakentoensurethattheactionwastimelytakenandthatapetitionwas
filedpromptlyafterpatenteebecameawareoftheexpirationofthepatent.Itmust
alsoenumeratethestepstakentoensuretimelypayment.
APetitionbasedonunavoidabledelayissignificantlylesslikelytobegrantable
basedonitsinitialfilingcomparedtoonebasedonunintentionaldelay.TheUSPTO
usuallyrendersanumberofinterlocutorydecisionsdismissingsuchaPetitionand
requestingadditionalevidenceuntilitissatisfiedthatashowingofunavoidable
delayhasbeendemonstrated,orconcludesthattheshowingcannotbemade(see
MPEP§711.03(c)(II)(c)).
Itisnotablethattheunavoidablebasishasalowerofficialfee,butitwilltakelonger
toprepareandprocess,willrequireagreaterburdenofproofandismoreuncertain
inoutcome.
5.2.2Unintentional
ManualofPatentExaminingProcedure.
21
Topetitionforrevivalduetoanunintentionaldelaypursuantto37CFR1.137(b)
requiresthefollowingfromanapplicantorpatentee:
1)therequiredreply;
2)thefeeforrevivingthe“unintentional”delay(1.17(m))($1500/$750);
3)astatementthatentiredelaywasunintentional;and
4)aterminaldisclaimer,ifrequiredby1.137(d).
APetitionbasedonunintentionaldelayrequiresa“statement”thatthedelaywas
unintentional,andthusdemandsamuchlowerburdenofproofthoughhigherofficial
fees.
5.3Petitionfordelayedpaymentofmaintenancefee
Under37CFR1.378,apatenteemayreinstateapatentwhichwasabandonedfora
missedmaintenancefee.Thereisasix-monthgraceperiodforpayingmaintenance
feeswithasurcharge.Ifthisperiodisexceeded,apatenteemaymakean
unavoidablyorunintentionallydelayedpaymentwithintwentyfourmonthsafterthe
expirationofthesixmonthgraceperiod(see§1.378(c)).Afterthat,apatenteemust
seekreinstatementonthebasisofunavoidablydelayedpayment(see§1.378(b)).
Ingeneral,thestatutoryandjurisprudentialguidelinesforrevivingAmerican
applicationsandpatentsareclearandcomprehensive,especiallywhencompared
totheCanadianoptions.
6.Conclusions
Asseeninsections3and4above,CanadiancourtshavefoundthatthePatentAct
andRulesplacetheburdenofpayingrequiredfeessquarelyontheshouldersofthe
applicantandthatmissingadeadlinehascatastrophicconsequencesevenif
unintentional.
Affectedpatentholdershaveattemptedtoresurrecttheirpatentrightsbyrelyingon
sections8and78.6oftheActaswellasonavarietyofcommonlawprinciples,
albeittonoavail.
Asforsubsection73(1)(a),whichpertainstoreplyingtorequisitionsmadebyan
Examiner,onemightaskwhatconstitutesanadequate“reply”toavoid
abandonment.Thoughtheothersubsectionsof73(1)relatetoaseeminglyblack-
and-whitefeeregime,inwhichfeesareeither“paid”or“notpaid”,itcouldbeargued
thatsubsection73(1)(a)containsmanymoreshadesofgrey.Onemightask
22
whethertheadequatenessofa“reply”insubsection73(1)(a)shouldbedetermined
bya“reasonableexaminer”testorbycursoryadministrativeinspection.
Forthemeantime,applicants,patenteesandtheirpatentagentsarestrongly
advisedtokeepmeticulousrecordsandtakeextremecareintheirdocketing
systems.RelyingonCIPO’s“regular”practicewhenriskofabandonmentisatstake
maynotbeadvisable;oneshouldrathererronthesideofcautionwhencompleting
applications,replyingtorequisitionsandpayingfeestoCIPO.Italsoseemsthat
legislativeamendmentswouldbenecessarytogiveCanadiancourtsorCIPOclear
discretioninresurrectingapplicationsandpatents.
TheCanadianandAmericanpatentsystemsarealsoacaseinpointofthediverse
proceduresanddegreesofflexibilityforrevivingpatentrightsindifferentterritories.
Thisrepresentsanaddedsetofhurdlesforanyoneimplicatedinmulti-territorial
intellectualpropertymanagement.Infact,thelevelofvigilancerequiredbyan
applicantorrepresentativetoensurethatanapplicationisingoodstandingmay
varyfromcountrytocountry.Knowingtheinsandoutsofreinstatementmaynot
onlyenableanapplicanttorecoveravaluablepatentrightthatinadvertentlyfallsout
ofgoodstanding,butmayalsoplayanintegralanddeterminantroleinthedayto
dayoperationsofpatentlawpractitioners.
Scienceandtechnologyaside,patentsystemsarecomplex.Theyarefraughtwith
pitfallsandstrictdeadlines.TheintricaciesoftheCanadianpatentsystemin
particulardemandahighdegreeofcareandattentiontomakesurethatvaluable
patentapplicationsandpatentsstayingoodstanding.
23
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,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD