Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Intellectual Property, December 2007
On June 2, 2007, amendments to the Patent Rules came into force. The main changes involved the small entity regime, the type of evidence required to show entitlement when the applicant is not the inventor, and harmonization of the Canadian standard for sequence listing with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) standard.
Reduced fees for "small entities" were introduced in 1985 to encourage universities and small businesses to use the patent system. Prior to 2003, the Patent Office would accept ‘top-up’ payments if entities mistakenly paid small entity fees but later realised that they should have paid the standard fees. However, in the 2003 Dutch Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents decision, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the Commissioner of Patents lacked the authority to accept these ‘top-up’ payments, thereby calling into question the validity of many issued patents and pending applications.
The 2007 amendments to the Patent Rules were intended to remove the uncertainty surrounding the small entity regime. The new rules modify the definition of "small entity" as follows:
"small entity," in respect of an invention, means an entity that employs 50 or fewer employees or that is a university, but does not include an entity that (a) is controlled directly or indirectly by an entity, other than a university, that employs more than 50 employees; or (b) has transferred or licensed or has an obligation, other than a contingent obligation, to transfer or license any right in the invention to an entity, other than a university, that employs more than 50 employees.
The rules now specify that small entity status will be assessed on the filing date for regularly filed applications and at national entry for PCT applications.
The amended rules also establish a corrective mechanism enabling patent holders/applicants to correct certain fee payments mistakenly made at the small entity level. This mechanism requires the patent holder/applicant to file a statement indicating that the small entity fee was paid in good faith and that the extension application is being filed without undue delay. The patent holder/applicant must pay the difference between the amount of the small entity fee that was paid and the standard fee, as well as an extension fee.
Declaration Of Applicant’s Entitlement
Prior to the 2007 amendments, an applicant who was not the inventor was required to file evidence (usually in the form of an assignment) that the applicant was entitled to apply for and be granted a patent.
Under the new rules, the Patent Office requires a declaration as to how the named applicant is entitled to apply for and be granted a patent as of the filing date. For PCT national phase applications, the filing date would be the filing date of the international application. Specifically, the declaration must identify which of the following circumstances apply, namely:
The applicant is the inventor
The applicant is an employer of the inventor
An agreement exists between the inventor and the applicant
An assignment from the inventor to the applicant has been executed
Consent from the inventor in favour of the applicant has been obtained
A court order has been issued by a particular court affecting a transfer from the inventor to the applicant
A specific type of transfer of entitlement exists from the inventor to the applicant
The applicant’s name has changed.
The declaration must also identify the parties involved and the relevant dates, and should include any other basis for the applicant’s entitlement that is not listed above.
This amendment is consistent with the requirements under the PCT and also reflects international trends to move towards a simpler way of providing this type of information.
It is still necessary, however, to register title documentation to show change of title from the original applicant and any change of title after issuance of the patent.
Under the previous Patent Rules, a non-PCT application containing a nucleotide or amino acid sequence required a different format than a PCT application.
The new rules incorporate the Standard for the Presentation of Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence Listing in International Patent Applications (the PCT sequence listing standard) into non-PCT applications, thus bringing the Canadian format for submitting sequence listings in line with the PCT standard. By referencing the PCT sequence listing standard in the Patent Rules, Canada’s standard will automatically change whenever the PCT standard changes, thereby ensuring that its standard remains consistent with the international standard.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Please join members of the Blakes Commercial Real Estate group as they discuss five key provisions of a commercial real estate purchase agreement that are often the subject of much negotiation but are sometimes misunderstood.
Emotional culture is influenced in great part by the mindset and actions of leadership, although employees also play more of a role than they may realize in creating the culture that exists in the group.
The session will be led by Dr. Robert Brooks, an award-winning author and psychologist. In his presentation, Dr. Brooks will describe the mindset and realistic practices of leaders and staff that help to nurture and sustain a culture characterized by positive emotions, satisfying, respectful relationships, a sense of meaning and ownership for one’s work, and enhanced job performance. Examples will be offered to illustrate strategies for developing a positive emotional culture in an organization.
Join leading lawyers from the Blakes Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation group as they discuss recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits law as well as strategies to identify and minimize common risks.
A recent Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench decision allowed a court-appointed receiver to sell and transfer intellectual property rights free and clear of encumbrances, finding that a license to use improvements of an invention was a contractual interest and not a property interest.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).