Foreign Prosecution History: To Admit, Or Not To Admit, That Remains a Puzzle To Canadian Courts

CanMar Foods Ltd. v. TA Foods Ltd., 2021 FCA 7

Section 53.1 of the Patent Act has brought about a significant shift in the Canadian approach to file wrapper estoppel by enabling the introduction of a patent’s prosecution history during claim construction. Prosecution files are now admissible to rebut a patentee’s representation that attempts to recapture ground conceded during the patent prosecution to avoid prior art.

In a unanimous decision, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) concluded that the Federal Court (“FC”) should have refrained from considering the prosecution history of the corresponding US Application at the trial level. However, whether the prosecution history of a foreign application can ever be considered pursuant to section 53.1 of the Patent Act is still unclear.

BACKGROUND

CanMar Foods Ltd. (“CanMar”) and TA Foods Ltd. (“TA”) are two Saskatchewan corporations competing in the business of manufacturing flax seed products. CanMar alleged that TA infringed its patent (the “376 Patent”) entitled “Methods for Roasting Oil Seed, and Roasted Oil Seed Products.” However, TA argued that its oil seed roasting or cooking process fell outside the claims of the ‘376 Patent. Specifically, TA’s process neither heated oil seed in a “stream of air” nor maintained the oil seed in an “insulated roasting chamber or tower.” Furthermore, these two limitations were added by CanMar during the prosecution of the corresponding US Patent Application (the “405 Application”).

In contrast, TA only used a Micronizer for heating oil seed via infrared radiation. Moreover, it was determined that the hoppers and the cooling tower of the Micronizer were clearly uninsulated. Therefore, TA claimed that no infringement could be found on the essential elements of the ‘376 Patent.

The trial judge considered two issues: first, CanMar expressly acknowledged that the claims of the ‘376 Patent had been amended to be substantially the same as the corresponding claims of the ‘405 Application in the United States; second, CanMar admitted that the amendments had limited the scope of the claims in order to overcome the novelty and obviousness concerns raised before the USPTO.

Therefore, the trial judge concluded that the language of section 53.1 generally should be limited to communications between the patentee and the Canadian Patent Office. However, consideration of foreign prosecution histories may be permissible as part of a purposive construction of the claims of the ‘376 Patent in such “extraordinary circumstances”.

Given that TA’s roasting process did not comprise the two essential elements at issue, the trial judge held that TA did not infringe any claims of the ‘376 Patent.

ANALYSIS

In the appeal decision, the FCA considered the scope of section 53.1 and whether it should cover communications between patentees and foreign patent offices.

The FCA found that the trial judge’s heavy reliance on the US case of Abbott Labs v. Sandoz, 566 F.3d 1282 (2009) [Abbott Labs] was inappropriate. In Abbott Labs, the US patent claimed priority from the application of the foreign patent which necessarily entailed that express reference to the foreign patent was made. Such was not the case here. Another US case, Paice LLC, The Abell Foundation, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 881 F.3d. 894 (2018) was found to be more relevant, citing that "[t]o incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents."

However, CanMar only mentioned briefly in a response to the Examiner that “new claims 1-19 correspond substantially to those submitted during prosecution of a related United States application.” The FCA held that it would be a far stretch to say the prosecution of the US Application was incorporated by reference when the specific application was not even cited within the document.

Furthermore, the FCA considered the public policy reasons and held that allowing foreign patent prosecution history into the analysis might lead to overly contentious and expensive litigation. While the global system has become more interconnected, some differences lie in the respective registration processes and the languages of patent claims. For example, a party may disclaim an element in one country that they do not have to disclaim in another, and the potential issues of translation may lead to major problems in the interpretation of the claims as well.

That being said, the FCA also pointed out that one should not underplay the public interest in keeping those previously disclaimed elements from being re-claimed in future infringement cases.

In conclusion, the FCA ruled that the corresponding US prosecution history should not be considered, but wished to express no firm views on the broader issue of whether the prosecution history of a foreign application can ever be considered pursuant to section 53.1 of the Patent Act. As a result, the FCA simply upheld the underlying decision that TA did not infringe the ‘376 Patent at issue and that CanMar’s appeal should be dismissed.

COMMENTARY

Before the introduction of section 53.1 of the Canadian Patent Act, it was very clear that the prosecution history in another jurisdiction was inadmissible for the purpose of claim construction. In this case, section 53.1 of the Patent Act is perceived as a step to better align Canadian law with its UK and US counterparts.

The importance of the trial level decision was significant, as it was the first case in Canada to interpret the purpose of section 53.1 and how it compares to the application of file wrapper estoppel in the UK and the United States. The broader issue of whether the prosecution history of a foreign application can ever be considered will be left to the courts to clarify in future decisions.

If you are dealing with an IP litigation issue, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation

For more information please contact:

Osman Ismaili, Patent Associate
T: 613.801.1054
E: oismaili@mbm.com

Grace Wang, Articling Student
T: 613.801.1072
E: gwang@mbm.com

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Taste, Smell, Sound, Touch, and Sight - Appealing to All Five Senses with Non-Traditional Trademarks

Words and logo designs tend to steal the show when it comes to what many typically associate with the term “trademark”. What is often underrepresented is that trademarks can be used to interact with consumers beyond their two-dimensional, visual components. In June of 2019, the Canadian Trademarks Act was amended and now includes a slew of non-traditional trademarks, such as three-dimensional shapes, colours in abstract, moving images, modes of packaging goods, smells, tastes, sounds, positions, textures, and holograms.

The expansion of the legal definition of a trademark in Canada, in conjunction with the potential perpetual term of protection, offers brand owners significant incentive to employ a multi-pronged approach in the protection of their products and services. Various unique elements of a product or unique features of consumer experience in the performance of a service may be protected as trademarks. By way of illustration, in practice, this can include the unusual shape of a bottle, the exclusive scent of a store, a catchy jingle, or the texture of a handbag. But like all good things, there is a catch. The Trademarks Act includes certain limitations which restrict the availability of non-traditional trademark protection.

Trademark protection cannot be extended to features which are dictated primarily by utilitarian function, in relation to the associated goods and services (s.12(2) of the Trademarks Act), nor can they unreasonably limit the development of any art or industry (s.18.1 Trademarks Act). For instance, it is unlikely that the taste of mint could be trademarked in association with gum, or a flowery scent trademarked in association with perfume, as these features are dictated by the functional aspect of the respective goods and would unreasonably limit the art and/or industry. On the contrary, the taste of mint in association with lipstick, or a flowery scent in association with stationary would likely not contravene the Trademarks Act. These provisions are also largely intended to remove the possibility of extending perpetual trademark protection to features which would otherwise be protected through a patent. In fact, the Lego® brick was famously the subject of this exact dispute before the Supreme Court of Canada.[1]

Moreover, at the examination stage, unlike in the case of a traditional trademark, the Canadian Trademarks Office will typically require evidence of distinctiveness of the applied-for non-traditional trademark. This means that the applicant would need to prove that the trademark has amassed sufficient reputation in Canada, to the point where the average Canadian consumer has been adequately educated as to its trademark status. This is often referred to as a “secondary meaning” since the evidence would need to demonstrate that the trademark’s overwhelming reputation causes consumers to dispense of its primary meaning. A classic example is the Coke® bottle. A bottle containing cola (primary meaning) is not specific to a single source, however the Coke® bottle is instantly identifiable, even when stripped of its label, because of the tremendous consumer recognition of that particular bottle shape belonging to Coca-Cola (secondary meaning). As such, it is advisable that a brand owner has several years of use of their non-traditional trademark and compile detailed evidence of the trademark’s reputation prior to formally applying for its registration with the Canadian Trademarks Office.

In creating marketing strategies, brand owners should consider the proprietary potential in thinking “outside the [traditional] box”. For example, in contemplating protecting a unique shape as a trademark, brand owners should consider taking advantage of the monopoly afforded by an industrial design in order to secure exclusivity and reputation in the shape, prior to filing for trademark protection. All things considered, creative branding strategists should venture beyond the conventional two-dimensional eye candy appeal of words and logos, and contemplate trademarks which can be perceived in three dimensions, felt, smelt, tasted or heard.

Despite the potential challenges with acquiring registrations for non-traditional trademarks, our team is accustomed to developing tailored non-traditional trademark strategies designed to properly position brand owners for success. If you are thinking of protecting a non-traditional branding element as a trademark, we would love to chat. MBM offers initial consultations at no charge.

For more information please contact:

Deborah Meltzer, Associate Lawyer
T: 613.801.1077
E: dmeltzer@mbm.com

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

---

[1] Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. / Gestions Ritvik Inc., 2005 SCC 65