The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
The Duty of Candour in Canada
Issue: Volume 27 no 2
Author(s): Steven Garland and Cameron Weir
Abstract:
In recent years, the question whether there exists in Canada some form of a general duty of “good faith” on patent applicants, and if so the scope of that duty, has been the subject of significant judicial scrutiny. Two past decisions of the Federal Court effectively held that s. 73(1)(a) of the Patent Act (which deems an application abandoned where an applicant fails to reply in good faith to a requisition of a patent examiner) imposes a U.S.-style “duty of candour” on patent applicants such that an issued patent could be rendered invalid on the basis of a finding that the patentee had failed to meet its s. 73(1)(a) obligations during prosecution of the application. However, in the more recent decision of Corlac Inc. v. Weatherford Canada Ltd., the Federal Court of Appeal held that the section applies only to pending applications and cannot be used as a means of attacking the validity of a patent post-grant.
