Didone v. Sakno

Didone v. Sakno

The application is dismissed because the Applicants' attack on the Patent Office's revocation communicated on September 27, 2001 is time-barred and, alternatively, the Board did not err: one applicant can effect revocation of a patent agent in the circumstances, the revocation was validly communicated and accepted, there was no common agent of record, and therefore under Patent Rules s.2(a)(iii) the first-named inventor became the authorized correspondent.

Citation
2003 FC 1530
Parties
Applicant: Brian M. Didone; Applicant: Manfred Harle; Respondent: Michael Peter Sakno
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Patent Appeal Board Decision Regarding Patent Application No. 2,331,099 / Reasons for Order and Order (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Authorized Correspondent, Revocation of Patent Agent, Statutory Interpretation, Limitation Period, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Patent Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Authorized Correspondent Revocation of Patent Agent Statutory Interpretation Limitation Period Standard of Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian M. Didone

Applicant

Manfred Harle

Applicant

Michael Peter Sakno

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Patent Appeal Board Decision Regarding Patent Application No. 2,331,099 / Reasons for Order and Order (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether one of multiple applicants can validly revoke a patent agent under Patent Rules s.20(3)
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in holding s.2(a)(iii) made first-named inventor the authorized correspondent
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants' challenge to the revocation was time-barred under Federal Court Act s.18.1(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because the Applicants' attack on the Patent Office's revocation communicated on September 27, 2001 is time-barred and, alternatively, the Board did not err: one applicant can effect revocation of a patent agent in the circumstances, the revocation was validly communicated and accepted, there was no common agent of record, and therefore under Patent Rules s.2(a)(iii) the first-named inventor became the authorized correspondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Respondent shall have the costs of this application payable immediately and irrespective of the cause.