Canada: Consultation on proposed Patent Rules amendments
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Canada: Consultation on proposed Patent Rules amendments

The government of Canada continues to modernise Canada's IP framework to comply with a number of international IP treaties, including the Patent Law Treaty (PLT). Previous amendments to the Canadian Patent Act have been made, but are not yet in force, to comply with the requirements of the PLT. The government of Canada is now in the process of amending the accompanying Canadian Patent Rules, which will guide how the Act is applied. A public consultation on proposed amendments to the Rules runs from August 1 to September 8 2017. In view of the necessary steps in the regulatory approval process in Canada, the amended Rules could be in force by early 2019.

A number of significant elements of the amended legislative scheme reflected in the proposed Rules are outlined below.

It is not possible to obtain a filing date on a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or other day when the Canadian Patent Office is closed for business. Under the amended regime, it will be possible to secure a filing date on a day when the Patent Office is closed for business if the application is filed by electronic means.

At present, a PCT application must enter the Canadian national phase within 42 months from the priority date, although an additional late fee is payable if the applicant enters the national phase more than 30 months from the priority date. Under the proposed Rules, the late entry option is removed as a matter of right.

At present, only the Canadian patent agent may pay a maintenance fee on a pending application. This will change such that anyone, such as an annuity service, can pay maintenance fees on pending applications, as is now the case for issued patents.

There is a focus in the proposed amendments on reducing pendency of patent applications with shortened prosecution deadlines. The term for requesting examination will be reduced from five years to three years from the filing date. Examiner's reports will have a standard term for response of four months rather than six months. The final fee will be due four months rather than six months from the notice of allowance. In some circumstances, deadlines may be extended upon payment of a fee.

Many of the proposed amendments to the Rules are directed to simplifying formal requirements and minimising the risk of loss of rights. Canadian patent applicants will likely notice few substantive changes to routine prosecution, although the pace should pick up somewhat with the proposed shortened time limits. Notably, with the shortened term for PCT national phase entry, applicants will need to plan ahead for Canadian national phase entry no later than 30 months from the priority date.

Tamara O’Connell


Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh55 Metcalfe Street Suite 900PO Box 2999 Station DOttawa ON  K1P 5Y6Tel: 613 232 2486Fax: 613 232 8440 ottawa@smart-biggar.cawww.smart-biggar.ca

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Gift this article