Ownership & Inventorship

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.
November 12, 2014

Ownership of a Patent was Transferred from a Director to the Corporation as if the Director were an Employee

Nature-Control Technologies Inc v Li, 2014 BCSC 1868 - The Court determined that a patent transferred from a director and co-owner of a corporation to the corporation by the implied intention of the parties by importing the analysis that is undertaken when determining if intellectual property impliedly passes from an employee to an employer.
November 8, 2014

Federal Court Denies Co-Inventorship to Marketing Collaborators

Drexan Energy Systems Inc v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2014 FC 887 - The Court found that two out of four contributors to the invention could not be added to the list of inventors because their contribution essentially amounted to suggesting desired features of the invention and communicating feedback from potential customers, which did not constitute an inventive contribution.
October 18, 2014

Federal Court Holds Failure to Disclose Public Servant Status in Patent Application is an Untrue Material Allegation

Louis Brown et al v HMTQ et al, 2014 FC 831 - Canada successfully argued that the inventor made an untrue material allegation for having not indicated in the patent application that he was a public servant, but whether this would invalidate the patent was considered a genuine issue requiring a trial.