Decision

Seymour v. Canada, 2021 FCA 180

Justice Mactavish; Justice Rennie; Justice de Montigny - 2021-09-14

Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:

Mr. Seymour appeals the Order of LeBlanc J. (as he then was), (the Motions Judge) dismissing his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents (the Commissioner). In that decision, dated December 10, 2018, the Commissioner had refused to grant the appellant’s application for a patent. ... The Motions Judge reasoned that an extension of time was not warranted in the circumstances, considering that there was no reasonable explanation for the delay and no merit to the appeal. ... As for the argument that the Motions Judge’s Order is not valid because the signature of the Judge is not handwritten, it is also without any merit. Rule 392 of the Rules only requires that an order be signed by the judicial officer issuing it. The Rules do not define what constitutes a “signature”, and it is the practice of the Federal Court to issue parties a copy of the order with an electronic signature.

Decision relates to:

  • A-398-19 - EUGENE SEYMOUR v. HMQ IN RIGHT OF CANADA (CIPO)

 

Canadian Intellectual Property