Date:
20080508
Docket:
T-1329-07
Citation: 2008 FC 587
Ottawa, Ontario, May 8, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blanchard
BETWEEN:
ANTIBALLISTIC
SECURITY
AND PROTECTION
INC.
Applicant
and
THE COMMISSIONER
OF PATENTS
Respondent
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
[1]
The Applicant, Antiballistic Security and Protection Inc., seeks judicial
review of a decision rendered by the Commissioner of Patents (the Commissioner)
on June 18, 2007 and July 11, 2007. The Commissioner refused to accept for
Canadian National Phase entry International Patent Application No.
PCT/US2004/020989.
[2]
The Applicant seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the
Commissioner’s decision, a declaration the Applicant’s Canadian National Phase
application with respect to International Patent Application No.
PCT/US2004/020989 is in good standing, and a writ of mandamus to compel the
Commissioner to accept the Applicant’s request for entry into National Phase in
Canada with respect to the said International Patent.
II. Background
[3]
On July 1, 2003, the Applicant filed a Provisional Application for
Patent in the United States, in respect of a first invention entitled
“Anti-Ballistic Materials and Processes” for which the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) issued the provisional application number 60/483,630
with a filing date of July 1, 2003.
[4]
On April 2, 2004, the Applicant filed a second Provisional Application
for Patent in the United States, in respect of a second invention entitled
“Armor Panels, Methods of Making and Assembling Thereof and Methods of
Incorporating Armor Panels in Vehicles and Structures” for which the USPTO
issued application number 60/521,336 with a filing date of April 2, 2004.
[5]
On May 5, 2004, Applicant filed a third Provisional Application for
Patent in the United States, in respect of a third invention entitled “Step By
Step Layers of ASAP BAM-1A Wall” for which the USTPO issued application number
60/567,795 with a filing date of May 5, 2004.
[6]
On July 1, 2004, pursuant to the United States becoming signatory to the
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the Applicant filed with the World
Intellectual Property Organization Bureau (WIPO) an international patent
application claiming priority to the First Invention, the Second Invention, and
the Third Invention, (collectively, the Inventions). WIPO assigned International
Patent Application Number PCT/US2004/020989 to this application (the PCT
Application). The Applicant designated Canada on the PCT Application as a
country to which protection for the Inventions would apply.
[7]
By letter dated May 17, 2007 to WIPO, the Applicant sought to “disclaim”
the priority claim to the First Invention while retaining the priority claims
to the Second and third Invention. The Applicant consequently amended their
claims to reflect the subject matter disclosed in the Second Invention and
Third Invention, and enclosed amended claims with the letter.
[8]
By letter dated May 18, 207, the Applicant submitted their application
for Canadian National Phase entry to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office
(CIPO) along with payment of the application fee, late fee and second annuity.
The Applicant notified the CIPO that they were claiming priority only to the
Second Invention and Third Invention.
[9]
By fax dated May 23, 2007, WIPO informed the Applicant that it would not
record the withdrawal of the priority claim because the time had expired for a
withdrawal in accordance with the Regulations under the PCT. The Applicant
responded by letter dated May 24, 2007, clarifying that it had not requested a
withdrawal, but rather a disclaimer of the priority claim to the First
Invention.
[10]
By letter dated June 18, 2007, CIPO informed the Applicant that the
application had not entered the National Phase as the required steps had not
been met. The Applicant responded by letter dated June 27, 2007, stating that
it had in fact complied with the required steps to enter National Phase within
the 42 month period. The Applicant relied on the priority date of the Second
Invention, namely April 2, 2004 since it had disclaimed the First Invention.
[11]
By letter dated July 11, 2007, CIPO restated that the Office is unable
to comply with the “disclaim” of the July 1, 2003 priority date because PCT Regulation
90bis.3 only allowed for a withdrawal of a priority claim prior to the
expiration of 30 months from the priority date and that the time for doing so
had already expired. CIPO maintained the position that the application had not
entered the Canadian National Phase.
[12]
On July 19, 2007, the Applicant filed the present application for
judicial review challenging the Commissioner’s decision.
III. Impugned decision
[13]
On June 18, 2007, the Commissioner decided that “the applicant did not
take all the required steps to request to enter national phase within the
expiry of the 42 months period, namely by January 1, 2007 and is therefore why
the Office has deemed the current application not to have entered the national
phase.” Further, he noted that according to WIPO, the priority date July 1,
2003 (60/483,630) was not withdrawn at the time of request for national entry.
CIPO essentially restated this position in its July 11, 2007 letter to the
Applicant.
IV. Issue
[14]
The only issue in this application is whether the Commissioner erred in
denying Canadian National Phase entry to International Patent Application
Number PCT/US2004/020989.
V. Standard
of Review
[15]
The parties are in agreement that the
relevant standard here is that of correctness.
[16]
In Dutch Industries Ltd. v. Canada
(Commissioner of Patents),2001 FCT 879, [2002] 1 F.C. 325, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1250 (FCTD), Justice Dawson considered the standard
of review of a decision by the Commissioner of Patents as to the interpretation
of requirements in the Patent Rules, SOR/96-423, (the Rules) with
respect to the payment of maintenance fees. She found that the only privative
provisions were those of sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act,
R.S. 1985 c. F-7, s. 1; 2002, c. 8, s. 14, which make it clear that the
Commissioner is subject to judicial review. She considered that the
Commissioner's expertise does not include the interpretation of statutes and
statutory instruments, and that any such decision has precedential effect. She
noted that the nature of the issue was a question of law. Based on these
considerations she concluded that the standard of correctness applied. Her
conclusion on this point was affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Dutch
Industries Ltd. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2003 FCA 121, [2003] 4
F.C. 67 at para. 23; leave to appeal denied [2003],
S.C.C.A. No. 204 (see also: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General),
2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533 at paragraph 36).
[17]
I believe the same considerations are
applicable to the sole issue raised in the present case. I am in agreement with
Justice Dawson’s analysis and adopt her conclusion. I will therefore apply the
correctness standard in reviewing the issue before me.
VI. Analysis
[18]
The Applicant submits the Commissioner erred in law in determining that
it did not take all the required steps to request National Phase entry within
the prescribed 42 month period. In particular, the Commissioner erred in
determining that the CIPO was unable to comply with the “disclaimer” of the
First Invention.
[19]
The pertinent provisions of the Rules, the PCT and Regulations made there
under are found in annex to these reasons.
[20]
The Applicant argues that nothing in the PCT, Regulations under the PCT,
Paris convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Patent Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, (the Act) or the Rules prohibits the disclaiming of
priority dates. It follows that since the priority date relating to the first
invention is disclaimed; the applicable priority date for Canadian entry is the
filing date of the Second Invention. The Applicant maintains that this is
consistent with Article 2(xi) of the PCT, because, by reason of the “disclaimer”,
the second invention becomes “the earliest application whose priority is so
claimed”. The Applicant further argues that this interpretation is consistent
with the object of the Act, which is to allow inventors to obtain Patents for
inventions that are novel, non-obvious and useful; and is also consistent with
the object of the PCT, which is to facilitate the filing and obtaining of
patent protection in several countries around the world.
[21]
The Applicant also relies on the common law right to disclaim priority
dates. It is argued that the Act’s silence on a procedure to “disclaim” is not
determinative so long as there was no contradiction with anything in the Act
which may affect patent rights. In support of his argument the Applicant cites
the Federal Court of Appeal, in Parke-Davis Division, Warner-Lambert Canada
Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2002 FCA 454, [2003] 2 F.C. 514.
[22]
The Applicant therefore submits that, it has complied with all the
required steps for Canadian National Phase entry within the prescribed time, as
set out in 58(3) of the Rules, for the completion of the requirements set out
in Section 58(1) and (2) of the Rules. As a consequence, it is submitted that the
Commissioner was not authorized to refuse and deny the entry of a Canadian National
Phase application.
[23]
In my opinion, the Applicant’s arguments must fail. The relevant
priority date to the Applicant’s entry into the National Phase in Canada is
July 1, 2003, the priority date for the First Invention claimed in the impugned
International Patent Application. The Commissioner was correct in denying
Canadian National Phase entry to International Patent Application Number
PCT/US2004/020989. My reasons follow.
[24]
The Rules provide for the process to be followed for an international
application to be accepted as a national phase application. Paragraph 58(3)(b)
of the Rules provide that upon payment of a late payment fee, the application
must be filed within 42 months after the priority date. The “priority date” is
therefore critical in such applications and Rule 50 defines it to have the same
meaning as in Article 2(xi) of the PCT. Paragraph (b) of that Article
finds application here. It provides, that “‘priority date’, for the purpose of
computing time limits, means: (b) where the international application
contains several priority claims under Article 8, the filing date of the
earliest application whose priority is so claimed;”. There is no dispute that
the filing date of the earliest application in the international application is
July 1, 2003. The Applicant argues that this filing date is not the earliest
application “whose priority is so claimed” because of its “disclaimer”. In
other words, since the Applicant chose to disclaim the First Invention, the
earliest application whose priority is claimed for the purpose of Canadian
Phase entry, becomes the Second Invention and by definition the priority date
must be the filing date of the Second Invention, April 2, 2004.
[25]
The difficulty with the Applicant’s argument is that there is no
provision for a “disclaimer” of a priority claim made in the international
application in the PCT or in its Regulations. The Regulations do provide for
the withdrawal of an international application, or the withdrawal of a priority
claim, made in the international application, at any time prior to the
expiration of 30 months from the priority date. See PCT Regulation 90bis.1
and PCT Regulation 90bis.3. No such withdrawal was requested by the Applicant
within the 30 month time limitation. The Applicant now seeks to obtain the same
result outside the time limitation by invoking a process not provided for in
the PCT or in the Regulations, the “disclaimer”. The Applicant’s position, if
accepted, would essentially allow for the withdrawal of a priority date beyond
the limitation expressly provided for in the Regulations.
[26]
Further, had the Applicant wanted to claim separate priority dates for
the Second Invention and Third Invention, it could have elected to file
separate international applications for those inventions. This was not done.
The Applicant chose to submit a single international patent application
claiming the First Invention priority date.
[27]
I am not persuaded by the argument that because “disclaiming” is not
prohibited in the legislation, it should therefore be allowed. Acceptance of an
international application for entry into the National Phase in Canada is
governed by sections 56 to 58 of the Rules. These mandatory provisions are
clear. Neither the Commissioner nor the Court has jurisdiction to modify, set
aside, or ignore them. See: F. Hoffman-Laroche v. Canada, 2003 FC
1381, [2004] 2 F.C.R. 405, affirmed on appeal at 2005 FCA 140; Eiba v. Canada,
2004 FC 250; and P.E. Fusion and Pfizer Inc. 2004 FC 645.
[28]
I am also not persuaded by the argument that the common law provides a
right to disclaim priority dates in the circumstances. Silence in the Act does
not necessarily lead to this result. Here, the circumstances are different than
in Parke-Davis Division. In that case the Federal Court of Appeal found
that dedication of patents to public use occurs often and that the dedication of patents to the public through notices
published in the Canadian Patent Office Record has become an established
practice. In the instant case, although the
legislation is silent on “disclaimer,” there is no established practice. There
is, however, an established practice for withdrawal of a claim of priority
date, which is provided for in the PCT Regulations.
[29]
I am satisfied that the legislation here provides for a comprehensive
regulatory scheme for matters relating to the filing in Canada of international
applications. In my view, the legislative scheme prevails over and displaces
the common law. The Regulations provide for a specific provision which could
have been utilized by the Applicant in order to render the First Invention
priority date ineffective. To allow the Applicant to “disclaim” the First
Invention priority date, when its withdrawal is prescribed by a limitation
period in the Regulations, would be to render the provisions under PCT Regulation
90bis.3 meaningless and defeat the intention of the legislation.
VII. Conclusion
[30]
For the above reasons, I conclude the Commission was correct in denying
Canadian National Phase entry to International Patent Application Number
PCT/US2004/020989. The Application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[31]
The Respondent is not seeking costs of this application. No costs will
be ordered.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS
AND ADJUDGES that:
1.
The application for judicial review is dismissed without costs.
“Edmond
P. Blanchard”
SCHEDULE
Federal Courts Act / Loi sur les Cours fédérales
|
18. (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court
has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an
injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus
or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any
federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and
determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of
relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought
against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal
board, commission or other tribunal.
(2) The Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
to hear and determine every application for a writ of habeas corpus ad
subjiciendum, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus
in relation to any member of the Canadian Forces serving outside Canada.
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2)
may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section
18.1.
18.1(1) An application for judicial review may be
made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by the
matter in respect of which relief is sought.
(2) An application for judicial review in respect of a
decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal shall
be made within 30 days after the time the decision or order was first communicated
by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to the
office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or to the
party directly affected by it, or within any further time that a judge of the
Federal Court may fix or allow before or after the end of those 30 days.
(3) On an application for judicial, the Federal Court may
(a) order a federal board,
commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed
or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
(b)
declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back
for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be
appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a
federal board, commission or other tribunal.
(4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection
(3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(a) acted without jurisdiction,
acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b) failed to observe a
principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it
was required by law to observe;
(c) erred in law in making a
decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the
record;
(d) based its decision or order
on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious
manner or without regard for the material before it;
(e) acted, or failed to act, by
reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f) acted in any other way that
was contrary to law.
(5) If the sole ground for
relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form
or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
(a) refuse the relief if it
finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and
(b)
in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or
an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from
any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.
|
18. (1)
Sous réserve de l'article 28, la Cour fédérale a compétence exclusive, en
première instance, pour :
a) décerner une injonction, un bref de certiorari, de mandamus, de prohibition ou de
quo warranto, ou pour rendre un jugement
déclaratoire contre tout office fédéral;
b) connaître de toute demande de réparation de la nature visée par
l’alinéa a), et notamment de toute procédure
engagée contre le procureur général du Canada afin d’obtenir réparation de la
part d’un office fédéral.
(2) Elle a compétence exclusive, en première instance, dans le cas
des demandes suivantes visant un membre des Forces canadiennes en poste à
l'étranger : bref d' habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, de certiorari, de prohibition ou
de mandamus.
(3) Les recours prévus aux paragraphes (1) ou (2) sont exercés par
présentation d’une demande de contrôle judiciaire.
18.1(1)
Une demande de contrôle judiciaire peut être présentée par le procureur
général du Canada ou par quiconque est directement touché par l’objet de la
demande.
(2) Les demandes de contrôle judiciaire sont à présenter dans les
trente jours qui suivent la première communication, par l'office fédéral, de
sa décision ou de son ordonnance au bureau du sous-procureur général du
Canada ou à la partie concernée, ou dans le délai supplémentaire qu'un juge
de la Cour fédérale peut, avant ou après l'expiration de ces trente jours,
fixer ou accorder.
(3) Sur présentation d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire, la Cour
fédérale peut :
a) ordonner à l’office fédéral en cause d’accomplir tout acte qu’il
a illégalement omis ou refusé d’accomplir ou dont il a retardé l’exécution de
manière déraisonnable;
b) déclarer nul ou illégal, ou annuler, ou infirmer et renvoyer
pour jugement conformément aux instructions qu’elle estime appropriées, ou
prohiber ou encore restreindre toute décision, ordonnance, procédure ou tout
autre acte de l’office fédéral.
(4) Les mesures prévues au paragraphe (3) sont prises si la Cour
fédérale est convaincue que l'office fédéral, selon le cas :
a) a agi sans compétence, outrepassé celle-ci ou refusé de
l’exercer;
b) n’a pas observé un principe de justice naturelle ou d’équité
procédurale ou toute autre procédure qu’il était légalement tenu de
respecter;
c) a rendu une décision ou une ordonnance entachée d’une erreur de
droit, que celle-ci soit manifeste ou non au vu du dossier;
d) a rendu une décision ou une ordonnance fondée sur une conclusion
de fait erronée, tirée de façon abusive ou arbitraire ou sans tenir compte
des éléments dont il dispose;
e) a agi ou omis d’agir en raison d’une fraude ou de faux
témoignages;
f) a agi de toute autre façon contraire à la loi.
(5) La Cour fédérale peut rejeter toute demande de contrôle
judiciaire fondée uniquement sur un vice de forme si elle estime qu'en
l'occurrence le vice n'entraîne aucun dommage important ni déni de justice
et, le cas échéant, valider la décision ou l'ordonnance entachée du vice et
donner effet à celle-ci selon les modalités de temps et autres qu'elle estime
indiquées.
|
The Patent Rules / Règles sur les brevets
|
50. In this Part,
“priority date” has the same meaning as in Article 2(xi) of the Patent
Cooperation Treaty.
…
56. Where an
international application in which Canada is designated is filed, the
Commissioner shall act as the designated Office as defined in Article 2(xiii)
of the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
57. Where an international application in which Canada
is designated is filed and the applicant has elected Canada as a country in
respect of which the international preliminary examination report referred to
in Article 35 of the Patent Cooperation Treaty shall be established, the
Commissioner shall act as an elected Office as defined in Article 2(xiv) of
the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
58. (1) An applicant who designates Canada, or who
designates and elects Canada, in an international application shall, within
the time prescribed by subsection (3),
(a) where the
International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization has not
published the international application, provide the Commissioner with a copy
of the international application;
(b) where the
international application is not in English or French, provide the
Commissioner with a translation of the international application into either
English or French; and
(c) pay the
appropriate basic national fee prescribed by subsection 3(5).
(2) An applicant who
complies with the requirements of subsection (1) after the second anniversary
of the international filing date shall, within the time prescribed by
subsection (3), pay any fee set out in item 30 of Schedule II that would have
been payable in accordance with section 99 or 154 had the international
application been filed in Canada as a Canadian application on the
international filing date.
(3) An applicant shall comply with the
requirements of subsection (1) and, where applicable, subsection (2) not
later than on the expiry of
(a) the 30-month
period after the priority date; or
(b) if the applicant pays the additional fee for
late payment set out in item 11 of Schedule II before the expiry of the
42-month period after the priority date, the 42-month period after the
priority date. [Emphasis added.]
|
50.
La définition qui suit s’applique à la présente partie.
«date de priorité» S’entend au
sens de l’article 2xi) du Traité de coopération en matière de brevets.
[…]
56. Lorsqu’est déposée une demande internationale dans laquelle le
Canada est désigné, le commissaire agit à titre d’office désigné au sens de
l’article 2xiii) du Traité de coopération en matière de brevets.
57. Lorsqu’est déposée une demande internationale dans laquelle le
Canada est désigné et que le demandeur a élu le Canada comme pays pour lequel
un rapport d’examen préliminaire international visé à l’article 35 du Traité
de coopération en matière de brevets doit être établi, le commissaire agit à
titre d’office élu au sens de l’article 2xiv) de ce traité.
58. (1) Le demandeur qui, dans une
demande internationale, désigne le Canada ou désigne et élit le Canada est
tenu, dans le délai prévu au paragraphe (3) :
a) lorsque le Bureau international de l’Organisation mondiale de la
propriété intellectuelle n’a pas publié la demande internationale, de
remettre au commissaire une copie de cette demande;
b) lorsque la demande internationale n’est ni en français ni en
anglais, de remettre au commissaire la traduction française ou anglaise de
cette demande;
c) de verser la taxe nationale de base appropriée visée au
paragraphe 3(5).
(2) Le demandeur qui se conforme
aux exigences du paragraphe (1) après le deuxième anniversaire de la date du
dépôt international verse, dans le délai visé au paragraphe (3), la taxe
prévue à l’article 30 de l’annexe II qui aurait été exigible selon les
articles 99 ou 154 si la demande internationale avait été déposée au Canada à
titre de demande canadienne à la date du dépôt international.
(3) Le demandeur se conforme aux exigences
du paragraphe (1) et, s’il y a lieu, du paragraphe (2) dans le délai suivant :
a) dans les trente mois suivant la date de priorité;
b) s’il
verse la surtaxe pour paiement en souffrance prévue à l’article 11 de
l’annexe II avant l’expiration du quarante-deuxième mois suivant la date de
priorité, dans les quarante-deux mois suivant cette date. [Je souligne.]
|
Patent Cooperation Treaty / Traité de coopération en matière de brevets
|
For the purposes of this Treaty and the Regulations and
unless expressly stated otherwise;
(xi) “priority date,” for the purposes of computing time
limits, means:
(a) where the
international application contains a priority claim under Article 8, the
filing date of the application whose priority is so claimed;
(b) where the
international application contains several priority claims under Article 8,
the filing date of the earliest application whose priority is so claimed;
(c) where the
international application does not contain any priority claim under Article
8, the international filing date of such application;
|
Au sens du present traité et du règlement
d’exécution, et sauf lorsqu’un sens different est expressément indiqué :
(xi) on entend par « date de
priorité », aux fins du calcul des délais :
a)
lorsque la demande internationale comporte une
revendication de priorité selon l’article 8, la date du dépôt de la demande
dont la priorité est ainsi revendiquée;
b)
lorsque la demande internationale comporte
plusieurs revendications de priorité selon l’article 8, la date du dépôt de
la demande la plus ancienne dont la priorité est ainsi revendiquée;
c)
lorsque la demande internationale ne comporte
aucune revendication de priorité selon l’article 8, la date du dépôt
international de cette demande;
|
Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty /
Règlement d’exécution du Traité de coopération en matière de brevets
|
90bis.1 Withdrawal of the International
Application
(a) The applicant
may withdraw the international application at any time prior to the
expiration of 30 months from the priority date.
(b) Withdrawal shall be
effective on receipt of a notice addressed by the applicant, at his option,
to the International Bureau, to the receiving Office or, where Article 39(1)
applies, to the International Preliminary Examining Authority.
(c) No
international publication of the international application shall be effected
if the notice of withdrawal sent by the applicant or transmitted by the
receiving Office or the International Preliminary Examining Authority reaches
the International Bureau before the technical preparations for international
publication have been completed.
…
90bis.3 Withdrawal of Priority Claims
(a) The applicant
may withdraw a priority claim, made in the international application under
Article 8(1), at any time prior to the expiration of 30 months from the
priority date.
(b) Where the
international application contains more than one priority claim, the
applicant may exercise the right provided for in paragraph (a) in respect of
one or more or all of the priority claims.
(c) Withdrawal
shall be effective on receipt of a notice addressed by the applicant, at his
option, to the International Bureau, to the receiving Office or, where
Article 39(1) applies, to the International Preliminary Examining Authority.
(d) Where the withdrawal
of a priority claim causes a change in the priority date, any time limit
which is computed from the original priority date and which has not already
expired shall, subject to paragraph (e), be computed from the priority date
resulting from that change.
(e) In the case of
the time limit referred to in Article 21(2)(a), the International Bureau may
nevertheless proceed with the international publication on the basis of the
said time limit as computed from the original priority date if the notice of
withdrawal sent by the applicant or transmitted by the receiving Office or
the International Preliminary Examining Authority reaches the International
Bureau after the completion of the technical preparations for international publication.
|
90bis.1 Retrait de la
demande international
a)
Le déposant peut retirer la demande
internationale à tout moment avant l’expiration d’un délai de trente mois à
compter de la date de priorité.
b)
Le retrait est effectif dès réception d’une
déclaration, adressée par le déposant, au choix, au Bureau international, à
l’office récepteur ou, lorsque l’article 39.1) s’applique, à l’administration
chargée de l’examen préliminaire international.
c)
Il n’est pas procédé à la publication
internationale de la demande internationale si la déclaration de retrait
envoyée par le déposant ou transmise par l’office récepteur ou
l’administration chargée de l’examen préliminaire international parvient au
Bureau international avant l’achèvement de la préparation technique de la
publication internationale.
[…]
90bis.3 Retrait de
revendications de priorité
a)
Le déposant peut retirer une revendication de
priorité, faite dans la demande international en vertu de l’article 8.1), à
tout moment avant l’expiration d’un délai de trente mois à compter de la date
de priorité.
b)
Lorsque la demande international contient plus
d’une revendication de priorité, le déposant peut exercer le droit prévu à
l’alinéa a) à l’égard de l’une, de plusieurs ou de la totalité desdites
revendications.
c)
Le retrait est effectif dès réception d’une
déclaration, adressée par le déposant, au choix, au Bureau international, à
l’office récepteur ou, lorsque l’article 39.1) s’applique, à l’administration
chargée de l’examen préliminaire international.
d)
Lorsque le retrait d’une revendication de
priorité entraîne une modification de la date de priorité, tout délai calculé
à partir de la date de priorité initiale qui n’a pas encore expiré est
calculé, sous réserve de l’alinéa e), à partir de la date de priorité
résultant de la modification.
e)
S’agissant du délai mentionné à l’article
21.2)a), le Bureau international peut néanmoins procéder à la publication
internationale sur la base dudit délai calculé à partir de la date de
priorité initiale si la déclaration de retrait envoyée par le déposant ou
transmise par l’office récepteur ou l’administration chargée de l’examen
préliminaire international parvient au Bureau international après
l’achèvement de la préparation technique de la publication internationale.
|
Email this Content