Ownership & Inventorship

From the moment that an invention crystallizes in the mind of an inventor, an inchoate ownership right is created of which the inventor is the first owner. Anyone wishing to acquire that right must claim title through the inventor. The inventor is the person who conceives of a new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and reduces it to a definite and practical shape.

March 22, 2023
Photograph of two inventors wearing lab coats in a scientific laboratory. The nearest inventor is looking into a microscope. There are beakers on the counter beside her.

Federal Court Allows Addition of Third Inventor to Two Patents

2023 FC 115: The Court found that the omission of the third inventor was a result of inadvertence, rather than delay, and allowed the correction.
September 30, 2022
A photograph of a female engineer peering through the wires of a computer.

Can AI Be an Inventor? We’re Asking the Wrong Question

If we reframe the question of “Should AI be named an inventor?” in the context of incentivizing innovation, we get a much more elegant question.
June 6, 2022
Photograph of a chimpanzee that appears to be thinking

Can AI Be an Inventor? Let’s Ask the Chimpanzees

If an AI produces an invention which satisfies the requirements of patentability, who is the inventor—the creator of the AI or the AI itself?
January 13, 2022
Researcher looking into a microscope in a laboratory.

Federal Court Allows Correction to Inventorship Amidst “Pending Litigation”

Some of the most common errors made in patent applications are in the naming of applicants and inventors. If the mistake is not caught in time, it can cause a nasty headache for the patent owner.
August 18, 2021
Concept art of AI showing a humanoid head made out of glowing green binary numbers on a black background.

Are We Ready to Name AI as an Inventor of Patents?

The Australian Federal Court recently recognized that an artificial intelligence can be listed as an inventor under the Australian Patent Act.
March 26, 2021
Photograph of an oil and gas pump.

Federal Court Applies Its Own Claim Construction to Infringement Case

2021 FC 85: The Federal Court upheld the validity of all claims, but found that PetroChina was not infringing Maoz Betser-Zilevitch's patent for an SAGD.
August 20, 2020
Close-up photograph of a wooden judge's gavel.

Federal Court Can Now Interpret Contracts in Patent Ownership Disputes

Salt v Baker - In a unanimous decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the Federal Court’s jurisdiction to hear contractual disputes involving patents.
March 18, 2020
Team of inventors wearing white lab coats in a laboratory.

Federal Court Removes Inventors from Four Patents

2020 FC 338 – The Court concluded that the six individuals were listed as inventors “by inadvertence in the process of the division.”
June 11, 2019
avx

CAFC Refuses to Hear Appeal from Patent Decision

AVX Corporation v Presidio Components (Fed. Cir., 2018-1106) A case recently dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) confirms that […]
September 13, 2018

Canada’s Federal Court Orders Variation of the Records of the Patent Office to Rectify Mistake in Application

2018 FC 311 – Pursuant to section 52 of the Patent Act, the FC ordered the variation of the Patent Office Records in relation to Canadian Patent Nos. 2,614,533 and 2,919,266 to rectify a mistake in the name of the legal owner of the patents.
May 8, 2018

ONSC Educates an Inventor on the Difference Between Obtaining a Patent and Maintaining a Trade Secret

2017 ONSC 7276 - The ONSC found that Rowland's statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action with regard to the allegation that his "trade secret" was stolen.
September 5, 2017

Canada’s Federal Court Confirms it has Exclusive Jurisdiction to Amend an Issued Patent

2016 FC 229 - The FC heard and granted an uncontested application by Novartis, pursuant to sections 31(3) and 52 of the Patent Act, to vary all entries in the records of the Patent Office with regards to the inventorship of a Canadian Patent.
April 11, 2017

FC Determines Improper Priority Claims Are Not Untrue Material Allegations

2016 FC 320 - The FC found that many of the claims in Uponor’s patent were invalid, rejected the untrue material allegation argument and found that several of the remaining claims were infringed by Heatlink and Pexcor.
March 10, 2017

Federal Court implies that it only has jurisdiction to expunge or vary titles to patents, not record documents to them

2016 FC 1092 - The FC heard and granted an order to vary the records of the Patent Office for Canadian Patent No. 2,630,594, but refused to order the recording of documents to it.
March 7, 2017

FC Removes Named Inventor from Patent Without Evidence That Remaining Named Individuals are the Only Inventors

2016 FC 499 - The FC allowed the removal of a named co-inventor from Canadian Patent No. 2,860,309, without requiring strict evidence that the remaining named individuals were the only inventors.
August 29, 2016

FC Rejects Jurisdiction over Contract Law in Assignment Dispute, Comments that s. 51 of the Patent Act Supersedes Conflict of Laws Principles

2016 FC 830 - The FC dismissed a case of contractual dispute over the ownership of a patent, and commented that, regardless of whether conflict of laws principles apply, no assignment or transfer of a patent can take place except in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the patent was granted (s. 51 of the Patent Act).
November 16, 2015

Federal Court Skirts Provincial Property Law and Transfers Patent Ownership

Imperial Oil Resources Ltd v Exxonmobil Upstream, 2015 FC 1218 - The Federal Court has finally stated outright that it has the jurisdiction to vary patent ownership without encroaching upon the realm of provincial contract law.
June 30, 2015

ABQB Upholds Patent Assignment from Employee Despite Partially Unpaid Salary

Groves v Canasonics Inc, 2015 ABQB 314 - After a falling out between a director and Canasonics Inc., the former director sought to ensure that any intellectual property in critical unpatented tools remained his own, and sought to reverse the transfer of a number of patents that he had already assigned to the company.
December 19, 2014

Section 52 of Patent Act used to Add Inventors to a Patent after an Omission due to Misunderstanding of Canadian Law

Dr Falk Pharma GMBH v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2014 FC 1117 - Pursuant to section 52 of the Patent Act, the Federal Court ordered that the Commissioner of Patents add Peter Gruber to the list of inventors for Canadian Patent No. 2,297,832. Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH, the applicant and owner of the patent, inadvertently omitted Gruber’s name from the list of inventors.
December 18, 2014

NSCA Draws Distinction Between Ordering Patent Assignment and Ordering a Transfer of Interest

Bardsley v Stewart, 2014 NSCA 106 - The Court found that the order was fair as it was merely ordering that Bardsley transfer his interests in the ‘770 Application to the extent possible, thus stopping just short of ordering assignment.