Gray Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) 2016 FC 55 Shore J
2,406,340
This was an uncontested application under s 52 of the Act, which gives the Federal Court broad
jurisdiction to vary or expunge Patent Office records related to the title to the patent, to correct
the ownership of the patent. The inventor had intended to assign his rights in the invention to
Gray Automotive Products Co., but the assignment document (which was attached to the patent
application) inadvertently specified Gray Automotive Products, Inc., and the Patent Office
consequently registered it against that name [4]. The mistake was unintentional, made in good
faith, and, was made without any attempt to mislead or cause delay [10]. Shore J held that the
broad jurisdiction conferred by s 52 includes the power to vary errors relating to the ownership of
a patent [9] and he ordered the appropriate correction.
For a slightly more extended discussion of s 52, see here.
Update: Here is an interesting note by Ken Bousfield describing Gray Manufacturing as symptomatic of a secular shift in CIPO's attitude towards clerical errors.
The secular shift that is so articulately described by Ken Bousfield has morphed into a form of zealotry, with the C-59 Budget Bill doing away with Section 8 altogether. Corrections will in the future be made, or not, according to regulations we are yet to see. In the circumstance, we could use a change of ways sooner rather than later.
ReplyDelete