Cloutier c Thibault 2014 CF 1135 St-Louis J
2,437,612, 2,470,139, 2,553,144
Mr Cloutier invented a new type of crimping tool for use in plumbing. He entered into a
partnership with Mr Thibault to patent the invention and commercialize it [5]. Mr Thibault filed
three patent applications for the invention without informing Mr Cloutier, and naming himself
rather than Mr Cloutier as the inventor [6], [9]. Mr Cloutier successfully moved to have the
partnership dissolved and to establish his entitlement to the inventions [11], but during and
shortly after that litigation the applications were abandoned for failure to pay maintenance fees,
in accordance with s 27.1 and 73 of the Act [12]. No application for reinstatement was made
within the 12 month grace period provided by s 98 of the Rules.
In this case, Mr Cloutier asked the
court to reinstate the application, and to name him as the
inventor. St-Louis J refused, on the ground that the court has no
jurisdiction in law or equity to
extend the mandatory time limits established by the Act [23-24]. That
proposition is well-established by the authorities cited by St-Louis J:
see in particular Hoffmann-La Roche AG v
Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2003 FC 1381 [41-45] aff’d 2005 FCA 399 [7-8].
Given the mandatory nature of the time limits, this conclusion would evidently follow regardless
of whether Mr Cloutier would have been in a position to seek relief in a timely manner, but the
court noted that the evidence suggested that Mr Cloutier could have taken steps before the
applications were irrevocably abandoned [25].
The court also refused to order the application amended to show Mr Cloutier as the inventor, as
this would have been pointless given the refusal to reinstate the application [27].
No comments:
Post a Comment