Canada Canada Kanada Report Q193 in the name of the Canadian Group by France COTE, Alfred A. MACCHIONE and Michel SOFIA Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications Questions I) Analysis of the current law 1) Are divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications, respectively, available under your national or regional law? Yes, divisional applications are available to applicants under Canadian national law and practice. In the case of continuation and continuation-in-part applications, these are not identified as such pursuant to the governing Canadian patent statute and its regulations. Rather, these types of applications are each instead recognized in a limited manner under a Canadian regime of permitting the filing of national applications on the basis of a domestic priority claim. In what follows, a Canadian application which makes a domestic priority claim without the addition of new matter will be referred to as a continuation application, whereas a Canadian application which makes a domestic priority claim with the addition of new matter will be referred to as a continuation-in-part application. 2) What is the justification behind allowing the filing of divisional, continuation and continuation in part applications in your law? For divisional applications, the justification is to enable an applicant to meet the unity of invention requirements under Canadian national law and practice while retaining the filing date of an originally filed application. Namely, a Canadian patent is to be granted for one invention only. Where an originally filed application describes more than one invention, the applicant may limit the claims to one invention only, and the other invention or inventions disclosed therein may be made the subject of one or more divisional applications. For continuation and continuation-in-part applications, the justification is to enable an applicant to revise the contents of an originally filed application while retaining the benefit of the filing date of the originally filed application in whole or in part, respectively. For instance, such revisions may be made to better meet the requirements of enablement, claim support or best mode disclosure, to provide for additional embodiments of the invention or to correct or clarify the disclosure or claims as compared to the originally filed application. 3) Under what circumstances and conditions may divisional, continuation and continuation in part applications (or combinations thereof) be filed in your national or regional patent system? A divisional application must be filed before the date of issuance to patent of its parent application. A continuation or continuation-in-part application must be filed within twelve months of the filing date of its parent application. 1
4) Are cascades of divisional, continuation and continuation in part applications allowed, i.e. is it possible to file a divisional, continuation or continuation in part application on the basis of another divisional, continuation or continuation in part application? Cascades of divisional, continuation and continuation-in-part applications are permitted under Canadian national law and practice, so long as the requirements for the filing of such applications are otherwise met. 5) At what time during the prosecution of the parent application may divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications be filed? As previously mentioned, a divisional application must be filed before the date of issuance to patent of its parent application (or the date of abandonment thereof). A continuation or continuation-in-part application must be filed within twelve months of the filing date of its earliest filed parent application. 6) Is it a requirement for filing an application that is a divisional, continuation or continuation in part of an original application (or of another divisional, continuation or continuation in part thereof) that the original application (or the direct parent application, or both) is still pending at the time of filing of the divisional, continuation or continuation in part application? In the case of a divisional application, only the immediate parent application need be pending at the time of filing of the divisional application and such parent application must not have proceeded to grant as of the filing date of the divisional application based thereon. In the case of a continuation or continuation-in-part application, all further applications must be filed within one year of the filing date of the earliest filed application from which continuation or continuation-in-part status is being asserted. Any preceding applications from which continuation or continuation-in-part status is being asserted need not be active nor copending at the time of filing of a continuation or continuation-in-part application based thereon. 7) Is it a requirement that the original application (or the direct parent application, or both) is still pending throughout the prosecution of a divisional, continuation or continuation in part application derived therefrom? As previously mentioned, for a divisional application, only the immediate parent application must be pending at the time of filing of the divisional application. There is no requirement that such immediate parent be pending throughout the prosecution of its divisional application. In the case of a continuation or continuation-in-part application, any preceding applications from which continuation or continuation-in-part status is being asserted need not be active nor co-pending at the time of filing of a continuation or continuation-in-part application based thereon. 8) Are there any restrictions as to what may be included in a divisional, continuation or continuation in part application? No new matter may be added in the case of a divisional application under Canadian national law and practice. In other words, only subject matter that is reasonably inferable from the specification (description and claims) and the drawings as originally filed may be added by way of a divisional application. 9) In particular, may the description and/or claims contain or claim matter that was not contained or claimed in the original application, or other application from which the divisional, continuation or continuation in part application derives? 2
As already mentioned, no new matter may be added in the case of a divisional application. The only exception to this rule is that the applicant is permitted under Canadian law and practice to add matter that describes the prior art with respect to the application. 10) Is it possible to extend the patent term in respect of matter contained in the original application by filing divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications, including divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications containing added matter, to the extent the addition of new matter is allowed? The patent term in Canada for all applications filed on or after October 1, 1989 is that of 20 years as measured from the filing date of the application at issue, without taking into account an earlier foreign or domestic filing date from which the application claims priority. A divisional application receives the filing date of its parent application and there is no extension of patent term available by way of the filing of a divisional application. On the other hand, a continuation or continuation-in-part application receives its own filing date and the filing date of its earliest predecessor application on which it claims continuation or continuation-in-part status is recognized as a domestic priority date. As such, it is possible to extend the patent term by up to twelve months in respect of matter contained in an original application by the filing a continuation or continuation-in-part application derived therefrom, regardless of whether or not the addition of new matter has taken place. The extension of twelve months in question corresponds to the previously mentioned time limitation within which a continuation or continuation-in-part application may be filed subsequent to the filing date of its earliest preceding application from which continuation or continuation-in-part status is being asserted. 11) Is double patenting permitted or must the matter claimed in divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications be deleted from the claims of the original application, or other application from which the divisional, continuation or continuation in part application derives? Double-patenting is not permitted under Canadian national law and practice, whether for divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications, with the exception of divisional applications filed in response to a restriction requirement issued by the patent granting authority. Impermissible double-patenting in Canada comprises two forms, namely claims having coterminous subject matter and claims for which the respective subject matters are not patentably distinct from one other on the basis of obviousness. 12) Does it matter in this respect whether the divisional, continuation or continuation in part application was filed in response to a restriction requirement issued by the patent granting authority? As previously mentioned, an exception to the rule against double-patenting in Canada arises where claims have been filed by way of a divisional application in response to a restriction requirement issued by the patent granting authority. II) Proposals for adoption of uniform rules 1) In the opinion of your National or Regional Group, what are the advantages, for applicants and third parties, of allowing the filing of divisional, continuation or continuation in part patent applications? For divisional applications, the advantage as previously mentioned is to enable an applicant to meet the unity of invention requirements under Canadian national law and practice while retaining the filing date of an originally filed application. 3
For continuation and continuation-in-part applications, the advantage as previously mentioned is to enable an applicant to revise the contents of an originally filed application while retaining the filing date of the originally filed application in whole or in part, respectively. 2) In the opinion of your National or Regional Group, what are the disadvantages, for applicants and third parties, of allowing the filing of divisional, continuation or continuation in part patent applications? In our opinion, there are no unwarranted or unmeasured disadvantages to divisional, continuation and continuation-in-part applications under the national law and practice of Canada, with the possible exception as described below of continuation and continuation-inpart applications based upon a Canadian national entry application from a Patent Cooperation Treaty international application. Divisional applications cannot be utilized to extend the patent term as measured from the earliest filed parent application, and such applications must be filed prior to the issuance to patent of the immediate parent application. No new matter may be added in the case of divisional applications. For continuation and continuation-in-part applications, such applications must be filed with a domestic priority period of twelve months from the earliest filing date of all preceding applications from which continuation or continuation-in-part status is being asserted. Any potential extension of patent term is therefore limited to twelve months for subject matter contained in any such preceding application. Under Canadian law and practice, all applications as a general rule are published 18 months from the priority filing date, thereby providing public notice of the contents of a patent application and of the potential claim scope which may result therefrom over the course of its prosecution. Under Canadian law and practice, continuation and continuation-in-part applications cannot be filed in respect of Patent Cooperation Treaty national entry applications where national entry takes place more than twelve months following the earlier of the international filing date or any priority date upon which the parent international is based. 3) In the opinion of your National or Regional Group, should the filing of divisional, continuation or continuation in part patent applications, respectively, be permissible? Yes, for the reasons previously described. 4) If international harmonisation were to be achieved in respect of the rules governing divisional or continuation patent applications, what should be the common rules in respect of the circumstances and conditions in which divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications may be filed? The common rules in the opinion of the Canadian national group would, in the case of divisional and continuation applications, prohibit the addition of new matter in every instance. For divisional applications, cascading divisional applications would be permitted without exception if an immediate parent application were pending at the time of the filing of every subsequent divisional application. For continuation and continuation-in-part applications, such applications would not be permissible outside of a fixed term as measured from the filing date of the earliest application from which continuation or continuation-in-part status was being asserted. Cascading continuation and continuation-in-part applications would be permitted without exception if such applications were filed within the fixed term as aforesaid. 4
It may also be opportune for all national groups to consider whether the fixed term provided for the filing of continuation or continuation-in-part applications could, by exception, be extended in order to permit the filing of a continuation or continuation-in-part application within an additional fixed term in respect of Patent Cooperation Treaty national entry applications, in situations in which national entry take place outside of the inextended oneyear term for domestic priority purposes. If such a notion were to be entertained, the Canadian national group would recommend that a statutory terminal disclaimer be made to operate to limit the ensuing patent term to a period commencing with the international filing date of the parent Patent Cooperation Treaty application from which domestic priority is being asserted. With respect to patent term, the term for any eventual patent to issue from divisional applications would be measured from the earliest filing date of any associated parent application. For continuation and continuation-in-part applications, the term for any eventual patent to issue therefrom would be measured from the actual filing date of such applications. 5) In particular, should a harmonised system permit the addition in a divisional, continuation or continuation in part application of matter that was not contained in the original application as filed? For the reasons previously presented, the Canadian national group is in favour of permitting new matter to be introduced by way of continuation-in-part applications but not by way of divisional or continuation applications. 6) Should it be permitted to use a divisional, continuation or continuation in part patent application to obtain new examination and decision of an application that contains claims that are identical or essentially identical with claims finally rejected in the course of the prosecution of the parent application? Should there be an exception where case law on the substantive conditions for patent grant of the patent granting authority has changed since the parent application was rejected? Would this possibility adequately take into account the interests of third parties in legal certainty? In the opinion of the Canadian national group, new or revisited examination in divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part applications of finally rejected claims from a predecessor application is warranted by the requirement under our national law and practice to pay a further examination fee for divisional, continuation and continuation-in-part applications. The interests of third parties are adequately preserved in Canada by the laying open of pending applications to public inspection. 7) Should it be possible to extend the patent term in respect of matter contained in the original application by filing divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications, including divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications containing added matter? In the opinion of the Canadian national group, it is not unwarranted to extend the patent term of subject matter contained in an original application by the filing of a continuation or continuation-in-part application if the patent term extension is limited to the fixed term within which a continuation or continuation-in-part application may be filed, and where this fixed term corresponds to a period of domestic priority that is aligned to the period of foreign priority available pursuant to the Paris Convention. 8) In the opinion of your Group, would it be justified to limit the access to filing divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications primarily with the object of limiting the backlog of patent granting authorities? In the opinion of the Canadian national group, it is unreasonable and unjustifiable to limit substantive patent rights by reason of a prosecution backlog or other such purely 5
administrative challenges as may be faced by a patent granting authority in Canada or elsewhere. 9) In the opinion of your Group, would it be desirable, in the interest of legal certainty of third parties, if databases of patent granting authorities ensured that a clear link was always indicated between original patent applications and all divisional, continuation or continuation in part applications derived therefrom? In the opinion of the Canadian national group, it is clearly in the public interest to have patent granting authorities in Canada and elsewhere record and furnish accurate data concerning related application information in the case of divisional, continuation and continuation-in-part applications. Such is already the practice in Canada in the case of backward crossreferencing to earlier filed parent applications. Under Canadian administrative practice, forward cross-referencing from a parent application to any subsequently related applications is not implemented at the present time, nor is concurrent cross-referencing as between member cases of a group of applications which all claim related status from the same parent. While such information is discernable in Canada by way of the examination of file histories or through search efforts, the Canadian national group would nevertheless support that all such forms of cross-referencing be clearly and conspicuously denoted on the face of Canadian patent documents or in the searchable online database records of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Summary A divisional application in Canada must be filed before the date of issuance to patent of its parent application. No new matter may be added in the case of a divisional application. In the case of a continuation or continuation-in-part application, all further applications must be filed within one year of the filing date of the earliest filed application from which continuation or continuation-in-part status is being asserted. A divisional application does not provide any extension of patent term. As a continuation or continuation-in-part application receives its own filing date, with domestic priority on its earliest predecessor application, it is possible to extend the patent term by up to twelve months in respect of matter contained in an original domestic application by the filing of a continuation or continuation-in-part application derived therefrom, regardless of whether or not the addition of new matter has taken place. Double-patenting is not permitted in Canada, with the exception of divisional applications resulting from a restriction requirement issued by the Patent Office. The Canadian group considers that there are no unwarranted or unmeasured disadvantages to the current practice in Canada. However, it may be opportune to consider whether continuation and continuation-in-part applications should be permitted to be filed under some circumstances when based upon a Canadian national entry application from a PCT application, even where national entry takes place more than twelve months following the earlier of the international filing date or any priority date thereof. To the Canadian group, it is clearly in the public interest to have patent granting authorities in Canada and elsewhere record and furnish accurate data concerning related application information in the case of divisional, continuation and continuation-in-part applications. Such is already the practice in Canada in the case of backward cross-referencing to earlier filed parent applications. 6
Résumé Une demande divisionnaire au Canada doit être déposée avant la date d émission du brevet de sa demande-mère. Aucune nouvelle matière ne peut être incorporée dans une demande divisionnaire. Dans le cas d une demande en continuation ou en continuation-en-partie, toute demande subséquente doit être déposée dans l année suivant la date de dépôt de la plus ancienne demande sur laquelle le statut de continuation ou de continuation-en-partie est revendiqué. Une demande divisionnaire ne prolonge pas la durée du brevet. Puisqu une demande en continuation ou en continuation-en-partie reçoit sa propre date de dépôt, avec revendication de priorité sur sa demande-mère la plus ancienne, le terme du brevet peut être prolongé jusqu à douze (12) mois en ce qui concerne la matière commune à la demande domestique d origine par le dépôt d une demande en continuation ou en continuation-en-partie découlant de cette dernière, peu importe si de la nouvelle matière a été ajoutée ou non. Le dédoublement de brevet n est pas permis au Canada, sauf au niveau des demandes divisionnaires déposées en réponse à une exigence de restriction émise par le Bureau de brevets. Le groupe canadien considère qu il n y a pas de désavantages injustifiés ou démesurés dans la pratique actuellement en vigueur au Canada. Cependant, il serait peut-être opportun d évaluer si le dépôt de demandes en continuation ou en continuation-en-partie devrait être permis dans certaines circonstances lorsque basé sur une phase nationale canadienne dérivée d une demande PCT, même lorsque la phase nationale a lieu plus de douze (12) mois suivant la plus ancienne des dates du dépôt international et de toute priorité de celui-ci. Pour le groupe canadien, il est clairement d intérêt public que les autorités en charge d émettre les brevets au Canada et à l étranger enregistrent et rendent disponible des détails précis sur des demandes apparentées dans le cas de demandes divisionnaires, en continuation et en continuationen-partie. Au Canada, l information de correspondance avec les demandes-mères est déjà fournie en ce qui a trait aux demandes subséquentes. Zusammenfassung Eine Teilanmeldung muss vor dem Erteilungstag ihrer Stammanmeldung eingereicht werden. Eine Teilanmeldung darf nicht einen Inhalt haben, wobei ihr Gegenstand über den Inhalt der Stammanmeldung hinausgeht. Im sonstigen Fall kann eine sogenannte Continuation- oder Continuation-in-Part- Anmeldung die Priorität einer ersten kanadischen oder ausländischen Anmeldung beanspruchen, aber nur wenn diese Anmeldung innerhalb einem Jahr von der Einreichung der Prioritätsanmeldung eingereicht wird. Die Dauer einer Teilanmeldung ist gleich der Dauer ihrer Stammanmeldung. Die Dauer einer Priorität beanspruchenden Anmeldung ist unabhängig von der Dauer der Prioritätsanmeldung, und auf diese Art und Weise ist eine Verlängerung der Dauer auf ein Jahr möglich. In Kanada ist die Doppelpatentierung nicht erlaubt, aber eine Überschneidung des Umfangs einer Teilanmeldung und des Umfangs ihrer Stammanmeldung wird erlaubt, insbesondere wenn die Teilanmeldung die Folge eines Amtbescheids ist, es gebe im Rahmen der Stammanmeldung keine Einheitlichkeit der Erfindung. Die kanadische Gruppe ist der Meinung, dass keine wichtigen Nachteile durch die aktuelle Praxis in Kanada vorkommen. Es ist aber überlegenswert, ob im Sonderfall der PCT-Nationalphaseanmeldungen die zwölfmonatige Prioritätsfrist für sogenannte Continuation- und Continuation-in-Part- Anmeldungen bis auf dem Eintritt in die kanadische Phase verschoben soll. 7
Die kanadische Gruppe ist auch der Meinung, dass in den amtlichen Veröffentlichungen aller Patentanmeldungen von allen Ländern erscheinende genaue bibliographische Daten über Teilanmeldungen oder sogenannten Continuation- und Continuation-in-Part- Anmeldungen im öffentlichen Interesse sind. In Kanada erscheinen schon diese Daten über Inlands- und Auslandsprioritätsansprüche sowie Stammanmeldungen. 8