Without Abandonment: A Simplified Way to Add or Amend Claims in Canada after Allowance

April 29, 2021

With the changes to Canada’s Patent Rules that came into effect on October 30, 2019, an avenue is now available for amending the claims of an application after allowance without the need to abandon and reinstate the application. This avenue simplifies the procedure for having additional claims considered after receiving a notice of allowance, which is routinely desired in view of Canada’s strict double-patenting prohibition.


It is good practice before the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) to make efforts to ensure that all desired claim sets supported by a patent application be presented before the examiner of the original patent application. This has been important in view of Canada’s unique and particularly strict obviousness-type double-patenting prohibition based on the claims of a parent application and the lack of a suitable remedy to overcome a double-patenting rejection that arises in a subsequent application such as by the entry of a terminal disclaimer.

For example, it has traditionally been advisable to present claim sets from related continuation applications in the U.S., or divisional applications arising in the U.S. and/or other jurisdictions, in the same application. This can have the effect of either having the claims examined and allowed together or triggering a lack of unity objection to create a potential safeguard against an obviousness-type double patenting objection being raised in a divisional application, which is filed in response to the lack of unity objection.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that if a patent is granted on a divisional application directed by CIPO, it should not be invalidated by reason only of the grant of the original patent. It is worth noting that a Federal Court judge in a recent decision made an obiter comment to the effect that a divisional application filed in response to an objection (as opposed to a final rejection) was voluntary and so not entitled to protection against double patenting. However, this comment has not changed CIPO’s examination practices and has yet to be adopted in any other Federal Court decision.

These efforts to present all desired claim sets together in some cases result in the need to add claims to an application that has already been allowed. This situation can arise when prosecution in foreign jurisdictions is out of step with the prosecution of the original Canadian application. However, prior to the amendments to the Rules, an applicant was forced to allow its application to become abandoned by failing to pay the final fee due (at that time) within six months of the mailing date of a notice of allowance, and reinstating the application by paying a reinstatement fee, paying the final fee that was due at the time of abandonment, and presenting a voluntary amendment to introduce the additional claim set(s). By doing so, the examiner was forced to consider the new claims and either issue a new office action (which may include a lack of unity objection) or reaffirm the allowability.

While this reinstatement mechanism achieved the desired goal, it had drawbacks - it required the applicant to wait for the final fee payment deadline to pass before having the ability to reinstate, and also resulted in the abandonment being made of record. Moreover, as noted above, in order to reinstate the application and present the new claims, the final fee (which was due at the time the application was intentionally abandoned), had to be paid when reinstating the application, and thus the application would proceed straight to issuance if the allowability was reaffirmed.

New Rules

With the changes to the Rules, an avenue is now available for substantively amending an application after allowance. 

This new avenue provides a mechanism to amend an application where amendments other than obvious errors are desired, providing recourse to an applicant to introduce new claims or claim sets after allowance.

The new avenue requires the submission of:

a) a request to withdraw the application from allowance,

b) a C$408 fee (as of January 1, 2021), and

c) the desired amendment,

prior to payment of the final fee.

Once the request is submitted, the application will be returned to the examiner for further review, including consideration of the submitted amendment. The desired effect of either having the claims examined and allowed together or triggering a lack of unity of objection can therefore now be achieved in a simplified manner, importantly without introducing delays by abandoning and reinstating the application.

Practice Tips

  • While the new Rules provide a simplified procedure for adding or amending claims to applications after receiving a notice of allowance, it is recommended, where possible, to ensure that all claims are presented prior to allowance - for example, by adding such claims by means of a voluntary amendment or when responding to an examination report.
  • At the time of receiving a notice of allowance, applicants should consider whether any additional claims or other amendments to the claims or description need to be presented. If so, the applicant can withdraw the application from allowance to enter the desired amendments.

Newsroom Articles

A Decade of Canadian Trademark Surveys Post-Masterpiece

Anthony Prenol

It has now been a decade since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Masterpiece v. Alavida, where the court had some harsh words regarding the use of expert evidence in trademark cases. At the time, many predicted that the case would signal the death of surveys evidence in trademark cases. A review of the cases that have been decided since Masterpiece reveals that, although Canadian courts are giving closer scrutiny to trademark surveys, they are continuing to admit well-designed and well-conducted surveys.  At the same time, however, courts have also used the Masterpiece decision as justification for rejecting surveys and other expert evidence.

Read more

Taking Comfort in the Past – Canada’s New Prior Use Patent Infringement Defence

Filip Boskovic

Anthony Prenol

In 2018, amendments to Canada’s Patent Act changed the nature and scope of certain defences to patent infringement. A new decision of the Federal Court of Canada was the first to consider the scope of the new prior use defence.

Read more

Everything Costs More Nowadays: Update on Costs Awards in Canadian Patent Litigation

Anthony Prenol

Antonio Turco

In our July 2020 article, “Moving on Up: Increased Costs Awards in Canadian Patent Litigation”, we discussed the trend in the Federal Court of Canada towards awarding increased costs to the successful party in patent litigation. In this article, we provide an update regarding some of the cases that have been decided over the past year. These cases have addressed issues such as when an award based on a percentage of the successful party’s legal fees may not be appropriate and whether the court has discretion to go beyond the 25% to 50% range when fixing costs as a percentage of actual legal fees.

Read more

130 Queens Quay East, East Tower, Suite 809, Toronto, Ontario, M5A 0P6, Canada
Main: (647) 478-2425 | Fax: (647) 478-2438 |
Email: info@cpstip.com
© CPST Intellectual Property Inc.
All Rights Reserved. 2021 |
Legal | Terms of Use
Website Design by Clutch Marketing