Tag Archives: Canadian Intellectual Property Office

PTA

CIPO has an announced a consultation on the determination of additional term if a patent was issued after a threshold date unless, after accounting for days to be subtracted, the net number of relevant days prior to issuance falls below the threshold outlined in the Act. The consultation also considers extension of time for requesting examination, suspension of examination during late payment of maintenance fees and requesting priority and early publication on the same day. The consultation period is open until September 8.

 

CIPO Fee Increases

Amendments to the Patent Rules, Trademark Regulations, Industrial Design Regulations and Copyright Regulations were registered on June 1st incorporating fee increases of about 25% as well as expanding the definition of ‘small entity’. The amendments appear to be generally inline with the versions published for consultation earlier this year. Most of the amendments come into force on January 1, 2024. Continue reading CIPO Fee Increases

Updates

A few updates over the last few days:

CIPO

CIPO has announced that maintenance activities will make several online applications inaccessible for portions of Sunday October 2nd and Monday October 3rd including the General Correspondence application for patents, National Entry Request (NER) Online Solution, Patent Maintenance Fee Electronic Service, Patent E-filing, Industrial Design General Correspondence  and Copyright General Correspondence. Patent Rule amendments come into force on October 3rd, including excess claim fees and requests for continued examination, that apply to applications where the request for examination is filed on or after October 3rd.

Patentable Subject Matter

As reported yesterday, the government/CIPO has appealed the decision of Benjamin Moore v. AGC, 2022 FC 923 regarding the proper test to determine whether a patent application is directed to computer-implemented patentable subject matter. The Notice of Appeal (pdf) states in part, “The Judge erred by ordering the Commissioner to apply the New Test because it contradicts binding jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Appeal in [Amazon] and [Schlumberger].”