Canada: Prosecute With Candour In Canada

Last Updated: January 11 2011
Article by Nathaniel Lipkus and Shonagh McVean

Originally published February 2010 in Managing IP.

Patent prosecution in Canada is often managed from abroad and typically takes a back seat to prosecution of corresponding patents in larger markets, such as the US and Europe. In fact, only 12% of Canadian patent applications are filed by Canadians, with only one of the top 10 patentees (Schlumberger Canada) and only two of the top 10 patent applicants (Schlumberger Canada and Research in Motion) based in Canada (see chart on page 25).

A December 2009 decision from Canada's Federal Court threatens to upturn the top-down manner of prosecuting Canadian applications. The Court in Lundbeck Canada Inc v Ratiopharm Inc (known as the Memantine decision) determined that patent applicants and their Canadian agents must be full and frank in their responses to examiner requisitions in order to fulfil their so-called duty of candour. Practically speaking, however, it is too early to know precisely what conduct will fulfil this duty, which is now indeterminate in its scope (see box on page 26).

A new set of risks

Consider a Canadian application that is prosecuted following preliminary findings of invalidity of the proposed claims of a corresponding US application, which were overcome by narrowing the US claims. The Canadian examiner will have the benefit of all the prior art that was before the USPTO and may look to the US prosecution history and find the proposed claims to be invalid on the basis of the same prior art that concerned the US examiner.

Until Memantine, dealing with this situation in Canada was straightforward: advocate fiercely that the subject matter in the application is inventive over the prior art of interest. Although the Patent Act is clear that patent applications are required to behave in good faith in replying to office actions, never had a Canadian court rendered a patent unenforceable on the basis of the forcefulness with which an applicant responded to prior art allegations. Memantine complicates matters. The Memantine judge imposed a new standard of practice on Canadian patent agents in replying to office actions containing prior art allegations.

In his opinion, the judge said: "A proper understanding of the prior art is clearly critical to patent examination. The duty of good faith ... requires that this prior art be fully and fairly described by applicants and their agents when answering requisitions from the Patent Office."

This passage suggests that Canadian patent agents and their clients may no longer passionately advocate that an application is inventive over the prior art, as is traditionally done. Rather, a dispassionate view of all known prior art appears to be required. This "full and fair" approach far exceeds the US standard, which merely requires that applicants not intentionally deceive the Patent Office in respect of information material to patentability.

Under these circumstances, Canadian patent agents are now expressing serious concerns about how they are to address prior art allegations in responses to office actions, including whether they should make any arguments at all.

A new defence to patent infringement?

With patent prosecution perceived as a cost centre rather than revenue generator in innovative businesses, there is a temptation to continue with the status quo (subordinating Canadian prosecution to prosecution in more lucrative foreign markets) as a cost-saving measure. However, this could have long ranging consequences.

Post-Memantine, patent infringement defendants now smell blood in the water and are adapting their litigation strategies to advance duty of candour allegations. It is a safe bet that if a patent is important enough to be the subject of infringement litigation in Canada, then Canadian defence counsel will avail themselves of any defence available based on a violation of the duty of candour by the plaintiff. In one example, not one week after publication of the Memantine decision, a client of this author's firm faced a barrage of attacks on its patent based on an alleged duty of candour violation.

The duty of candour stems from a provision in Canada's Patent Act, which deems a patent application to be abandoned if the applicant does not "reply in good faith to any requisition made by an examiner in connection with an examination" within a specified time period. The Patent Office will not notify the applicant if the patent has been abandoned; rather, it is not until the patent becomes contentious in the marketplace that potential infringers will retrospectively allege that the patent was irretrievably abandoned at the time of the alleged bad faith.

This development obviously introduces enormous uncertainty for patentees, applicants and Canadian patent agents seeking to meet an elevated, yet indeterminate, professional standard of care. Should companies stop patenting in Canada? Should patent applications be abandoned if an examiner issues a rejection based on prior art? On the contrary, not only can a properly-coordinated global patent prosecution strategy address the risks associated with Canadian prior art objections, but careful compliance with the duty of candour can sanitise a patent application so that it is as potent as possible when litigation ensues.

The key: a coordinated patent strategy

The content of the duty of candour has not yet been fleshed out by Canadian courts, and it is still possible that an appellate court will revisit the issue and limit the scope of the duty of candour. However, as of today, the duty of candour exists, meaning that more care will be required in prosecuting Canadian patents. Here are four tips to assist companies in complying with their newfound prosecution obligations while not compromising their global patent protection objectives:

Do not depart from positions taken in respect of foreign patents

Often, Canadian patent agents are not in a position to determine whether an office action response reflects a full and frank account of the applicant's knowledge relating to a particular prior art issue. This is because the Canadian agent is normally not the agent responsible for doing prior art searches or having knowledge of prosecution abroad.

Canadian courts have been critical of patent prosecution carried out by patent agents who fail, for a lack of knowledge or otherwise, to accurately represent the invention as developed by the inventors. One of Canada's most reputable patent judges, Justice Roger Hughes, recently criticised Pfizer's patent prosecution for its amlodipine besylate patent, which was carried out by an in-house patent agent trainee with little knowledge of the applicable chemistry, and who had little guidance from the inventors (Ratiopharm Inc v Pfizer Limited, Federal Court, 2009). In part based on intentionally misleading misstatements found within the patent, the Court invalidated the patent.

Following Memantine and the Court's scrutiny of slipshod prosecution, litigants can now expect patent defendants to use foreign filings and prior inconsistent statements made to foreign patent authorities in advancing their duty of candour defence. To overcome such attacks, companies should stay consistent with relevant positions taken before foreign patent examiners for any corresponding or related patent. This will permit the Canadian agent to know whether the company is meeting the "full and frank disclosure" standard articulated by the Federal Court in Memantine.

To minimise the risk of inconsistency between Canadian and foreign applications, companies should not only harmonise their international advocacy before the various patent offices, they should also carefully consider making their Canadian claims correspond with claims submitted in other countries. Even though the Canadian Patent Office often allows broader claims than those approved in other jurisdictions, an applicant may face a dilemma if it obtains a broad claim in Canada that has been rejected as obvious in a foreign jurisdiction. An anomalously broad Canadian claim invites the scrutiny of the court, and the reward for aggressive Canadian prosecution may well be a court finding that the entire patent was retroactively abandoned.

Ask the question: If I omit this information, am I ceasing to be "full and frank" in my disclosure?

In a contentious prosecution, it is often unavoidable to take a strong position on a key issue. As knowledgeable practitioners, Canadian patent agents are normally aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their position, and it is expected that strengths will be emphasised, and weaknesses minimised, in office action responses. However, an adversarial approach to advocacy before the Patent Office has suddenly become a much riskier proposition.

Full and frank disclosure requires that companies carefully consider what they have omitted from an office action response in the course of advocating their position. In the Memantine case, Lundbeck was penalised for failing to discuss a prior art reference in response to an obviousness rejection, even though the company had brought the reference to the examiner's attention. After Memantine, prudent applicants will at least acknowledge the existence of information known to be directly relevant to the patentability issue raised by the examiner.

Emphasise facts over argument in advocating before the Patent Office

Canadian office action responses should be reviewed carefully for unnecessary rhetoric. In finding that Lundbeck had violated the duty of candour in Memantine, the Court focused primarily on a single statement made by Lundbeck's Canadian agent in an office action response:

It is therefore the applicant's opinion that the teachings of the prior art as a whole would not have prompted the skilled person, faced with the problem of formulating a composition for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment or dementia, to elaborate the instant composition and that consequently the claims on file are not obvious in view of the prior art. Therefore, withdrawal of this objection is respectfully requested.

By drawing a conclusion regarding "the teachings of the prior art as a whole [emphasis added]", Lundbeck's agent suddenly placed an onerous obligation on itself with respect to the entire body of relevant prior art. Was this necessary to properly respond to the patent examiner? Likely not. Had Lundbeck merely concluded its response simply by stating that the claims were not obvious, the Court may have identified nothing misleading in the response, thereby saving the patent.

Patent law issues are especially complex and ill-suited for application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur (meaning literally, the thing speaks for itself). However, patent applicants would be wise to present prior art information to patent examiners in a more dispassionate style than has traditionally been used, allowing the facts to speak for themselves. Submissions should be heavy on persuasive facts and light on forceful rhetoric, except where such rhetoric is fully supported by the entire factual record.

Seek updated information on your Canadian prosecution obligations at regular intervals

As of today, the law imposes a duty of candour of patent applicants, meaning that more care is required in prosecuting Canadian patents. However, the law relating to Canadian prosecution obligations is in flux, and it is possible that the Federal Court of Appeal will face a similar question and express disagreement with the Memantine decision, leading to a narrowing or non-recognition of the duty of candour. Innovators would be wise to be mindful of Memantine but to also watch for future court decisions that dictate the rules of engagement for innovative companies before the Canadian Patent Office.

The Memantine decision

The Memantine decision resulted from an administrative patent proceeding under Canada's Patented Medicine (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, wherein Lundbeck sought an order prohibiting ratiopharm from obtaining authorisation from Health Canada to market its generic memantine (marketed under the name Ebixa) product. Lundbeck asserted two patents, one of which – Canadian patent number 2,426,492 (the 492 Patent) – involved the use of memantine, an Alzheimer's drug – in combination with one of several cholinesterase inhibitors also indicated in the treatment of Alzheimer's. The Court found that the second patent did not pose a barrier to market entry.

The Court addressed ratiopharm's allegation that the 492 Patent had been abandoned, and this is where it delved into the existence and scope of the duty of candour in Canada. The Court's analysis arises from paragraph 73(1)(a) of the Patent Act, which deems an application for a patent to be abandoned if, amongst other things, the applicant does not "reply in good faith to any requisition made by an examiner in connection with an examination, within six months after the requisition is made or within any shorter period established by the Commissioner" [emphasis added].

Ratiopharm alleged that the applicants for the 492 Patent misrepresented during examination that the prior art "taught away" from using a combination of memantine and a cholinesterase inhibitor in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Although ratiopharm and the Court acknowledged that a key prior art document by Wenk had been brought to the attention of the Patent Office, ratiopharm alleged that the applicants failed to discuss the significance or provide a copy of the Wenk article in responding to an office action finding of obviousness.

In its office action response, the applicants discussed several pieces of prior art that, taken together, could have been taken to suggest that a skilled person would not have been motivated to combined memantine with a cholinesterase inhibitor. The response then went on to conclude that:

It is therefore the Applicant's opinion that the teachings of the prior art as a whole would not have prompted the skilled person, faced with the problem of formulating a composition for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment or dementia, to elaborate the instant composition and that consequently the claims on file are not obvious in view of the prior art. Therefore, withdrawal of this objection is respectfully requested [emphasis added].

In reviewing this exchange of communication, Justice Mactavish of the Federal Court first affirmed that s. 73(1)(a) imposes a duty of candour on the part of applicants in the prosecution of a patent application in Canada.

In affirming the existence of this duty, Mactavish drew on Justice Hughes's reasoning in GD Searle & Co v Novopharm Ltd (2007). Mactavish accepted Hughes's analysis as an accurate overview of the obligations on an applicant. In particular, she approved of Hughes's analogy between an application for a patent and an ex parte court proceeding, finding that "the ordinary checks and balances of the adversary system are not operative".

In applying the duty of candour, Mactavish observed that the patent examiner was concerned with obviousness, and in particular the obviousness of combining memantine with cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Instead of alerting the examiner to the importance of the Wenk article, the patent agents advised the patent examiner of other articles warning against combining NMDA antagonists (of which memantine is one) with cholinesterase inhibitors because NMDA antagonists attenuate the effect of the cholinesterase inhibitors.

Missing from the patent agents' office action response was the fact that Wenk was directly relevant to the claimed combinations (unlike the articles cited), and that Wenk came to the opposite conclusion of those other articles. Specifically, Wenk explained that certain "reversible" cholinesterase inhibitors such as those contemplated in the 492 Patent did not lose their therapeutic effect when used in conjunction with memantine. In view of Wenk, Mactavish found that the patent agents did not fairly represent the teachings of the prior art when they said that "the prior art clearly teaches away" from the invention alleged in the 492 Patent. Prior disclosure of the existence of the Wenk article did not change the fact that the statements made in the response "were not a full, fair or complete depiction of the teachings of the prior art". There is no appeal possible from this decision.

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.