• About us
    Who We AreStaff DirectoryBoard of DirectorsHall of FameMember AwardsStrategic Plan / Annual ReportsCommittees/CommunitiesCode of EthicsEducational FoundationEquity, Diversity & Inclusion
  • Advocacy
    IPIC SubmissionsIPIC Intervention Policy
  • What is IP?
     IP BasicsOwn it. CampaignWhy Use a ProfessionalHow to Become an AgentIndigenous Traditional Knowledge
  • Education
    Certification ProgramsCourses & EventsCertified Canadian Patent & Trademark Administrator Search Tool
  • Resources
    NewsCIPRFind an IP ProfessionalIPIC Job BankIPIC Compensation SurveysMedia KitIP Assist
  • Membership
    Your profession. Our purpose.Join NowMember BenefitsMember CategoriesMember Referral ProgramInsurance Program: IP Agent Insurance
  • 0
  • FR
David Ruston
Marks & Clerk Canada | Marks & Clerk Law LLP
,
Amrita V. Singh
Marks & Clerk Canada | Marks & Clerk Law LLP
,
Simmi Mangat
Topics
Share

Navigating your Global Patent Prosecution Strategy under Canada’s new Patent Rules

Published on October 27, 2020

The Backstory

The new Canadian Patent Rules came into effect on October 30, 2019 with the intent to make Canada compliant with its international treaty obligations by harmonizing and streamlining the administrative procedures for patents and patent applications. The changes to the Rules have resulted in both patent prosecutors and intellectual property owners adapting and developing new prosecution strategies.

Because patentees often want to align their Canadian patent applications with their global patent prosecution strategy, notably applications in other larger jurisdictions, such as Europe and the United States, Canadian applications are sometimes deliberately delayed to ensure consistency with corresponding international counterparts. Below is a brief discussion of how delays may be maximized under the new Rules.[1]

Delaying Requests for Examination

In Canadian patent prosecution, patent applicants must expressly request examination of an application within four years of the filing date. If that deadline is missed, the Patent Office will issue a notice requiring that examination be requested within two months from the date of that notice (along with payment of the applicable fees). The Patent Office will usually issue the notice within two months of the missed examination request deadline.

If the notice deadline is missed, the application is deemed abandoned. However, despite that deemed abandonment, the application may be reinstated within 12 months of the date the application was deemed abandoned.

But beware; under the new Rules, if reinstatement occurs after six months from the missed examination request deadline, the applicant will be required to provide reasons for its failure to file the request and provide evidence of due care. In addition, third party actions that would otherwise infringe the applicant’s rights will be without penalty, until the application is reinstated. This may have serious consequences for a patentee’s ability to enforce its rights, and it is important for applicants to recognize that this third party carve-out comes into effect regardless of when the above-mentioned notice was sent.

Delaying requests for examination through abandonment can allow applicants to wait for prosecution to advance in other jurisdictions, bearing in mind the longer they wait the higher the bar becomes to getting the applications reinstated, and the greater the risk of third parties gaining rights as a result of the delay. Careful diarizing of dates is fundamental to this strategy.

Delaying Responses to the Examiner

Once examination has been requested and an Office Action has been received, prosecution may still be delayed. Applicants have four months to respond to the Office Action, with an additional extension of two months available with a simple justification (e.g., we need more time to prepare a response). The request for the extension must be made before the response deadline.

If no response is submitted by the deadline (even after the two-month extension is granted), the application will be deemed abandoned. Again, the application may be reinstated within 12 months of the abandonment date. Unlike a delayed examination request however, there is no requirement to show due care.

Taking this approach allows an applicant to delay prosecution up to 14 months from the original Office Action response deadline.

But beware; as file wrapper estoppel is now a part of Canadian patent law and may be applicable in patent litigation, applicants should be cautious in how they respond to Office Actions, and how they amend Canadian applications in view of foreign ones.

Delaying after Allowance

If and when a Patent Office Examiner concludes an application complies with the Patent Act and Rules, they will issue a notice of allowance. Once the notice has issued, only amendments to correct obvious errors are permitted. However, a request within four months of receipt of the notice to withdraw it (along with payment of the applicable fee), will re-open prosecution and return the application to examination allowing further amendments to be made. Once back in prosecution, the timing of examination may be further extended.

If a request to withdraw the notice is not submitted, and the final fee is not paid within the four-month period, the application is deemed abandoned. It may reinstated as of right with payment of the final fee, but reinstatement will not re-open prosecution.

But beware; like Pandora’s box, if the application is re-opened to examination, there is a risk of unpleasant consequences (e.g., new art may be raised by the Examiner).

The Takeaway

As described above, an application may be deliberately (or because of unforeseen circumstances) delayed during prosecution in multiple ways.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unforeseen circumstance that has caused patent offices around the world, including the Canadian Patent Office, to shut down rather abruptly with lockdowns, and while they are slowly beginning to ramp back up to full operation, the resulting delays (and several rounds of designated days granted by the Canadian Patent Office to afford applicants more time to address prosecution – mindful of physical and economic limitations caused by the pandemic) mean that correspondence with the patent offices is delayed. Needless to say, in Canada these delays impact requests for examination, responses to Office Actions, and re-opening prosecution of applications after notices of allowance are issued.

It is important to discuss the above strategies and corresponding considerations with your patent agent to make sure you understand the implications for your patent application(s) and intellectual property rights

[1] Except where indicated, the strategies above apply to both national phase entries and applications directly filed in Canada.

*This article was originally published on Marks & Clerk's website: https://www.marks-clerk.com/Home/Knowledge-News/Articles/Navigating-your-Global-Patent-Prosecution-Strategy.aspx#.X5h31ohKi71 

*Article disponible en anglais seulement.

Related Articles

February 14, 2025

Cleaning Out the Closet: The Trademarks Opposition Board is Reviewing the Register

Michael Badejo
Section 45 of the Trademarks Act has generally provided a way for trademark registration applicants and opponents to remove “deadwood”—unused and abandoned trademarks that were on the trademark register. This process was generally reserved for parties to begin and oversee. In December 2024, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) advised of a pilot project which would see TMOB initiate section 45 proceedings. The effect? TMOB can clear the register of deadwood without waiting for applicants or opponents to initiate the process. Michael Badejo, Lawyer at Fillmore Riley LLP, walks us through how these changes impact operating procedures, processes and directions for TMOB. 
TopicsTrademarks
January 24, 2025

Practical implications of the Federal Court’s definition of “forced” divisional patent applications in NCS Multistage

Émilie Fleury
In NCS Multistage Inc. v. Kobold Corporation, 2023 FC 1486, the Federal Court revisited the question of what constitutes a “forced” divisional patent application—an important distinction given that forced divisionals enjoy immunity from double patenting allegations. This Emilie-Anne Fleury explores how the Court assessed whether certain divisional patents were truly “forced,” clarifies how voluntary versus forced divisions are treated under Canadian patent law, and highlights the practical considerations for patent applicants navigating unity of invention objections.
TopicsPatents
January 17, 2025

Unveiling the Canvas: Tackling the Issue of Counterfeit Indigenous Art in Canada

Melissa Tarsitano, AFSHAAN JIWAJI KAPASI
Art has always been a profound expression of culture, history, and identity. In Canada, Indigenous art stands as a vibrant testament to the rich heritage and diverse traditions of Indigenous peoples. However, amidst the celebration of this cultural wealth, a troubling issue looms large – the prevalence of counterfeit Indigenous art. Afshaan Jiwaji Kapasi & Melissa Tarsitano explore the complexities of counterfeit Indigenous art and offer opportunities to safeguard and authentically celebrate Indigenous art.
TopicsAnti-Counterfeiting Committee Indigenous

MISSION

Our mission is to enhance our members’ expertise as trusted intellectual property advisors, and to shape a policy and business environment that encourages the development, use, and value of intellectual property.


VISION

Our vision is for IPIC to be the leading authority on intellectual property in Canada, and the voice of intellectual property professionals.

LATEST TWEETS

Twitter feed is currently not available

CONTACT US

360 Albert Street, Suite 550
Ottawa, ON K1R 7X7

T 613-234-0516
E admin@ipic.ca

LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The IPIC office is located in Ottawa, on the traditional, unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.

©2021 Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, Ottawa, ON
Designed by Ottawa Web Design driven by Member Management Software