Matco Tools Corporation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 118
Justice Zinn - 2025-01-22
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The Commissioner refused to reinstate Matco’s Patent Application which, pursuant to subsection 73(1)(c) of the Patent Act, had been deemed abandoned for failure to pay maintenance fees. ... There are at least two aspects of the Commissioner’s analysis of “due care” in the decision under review that the Court finds to be of concern. ... The Commissioner completely overlooks the fact that, but for the migration error, the maintenance fee would have been paid and the Commissioner’s Notice would not have been required or sent.... In other words, neither the international nor the domestic policy guidelines recommend that the Commissioner may disregard an initial root error (the Proximate Cause) simply because the final notice offers a subsequent opportunity for correction. I am of the view that shared responsibility of due care applies from the outset of the relationship between the applicant and its authorized representative. ... Specifically, the Commissioner pressed the perceived mishandling of communications of the Commissioner’s notice by the US Counsel, yet glosses over the key fact that US Counsel was never authorized to pay or manage matters related to maintenance fees. ... The Commissioner’s decision refusing to reinstate the 194 Application is set aside and the Applicant’s request to reinstate the 194 Application is to be determined by a different person
Decision relates to:
- T-31-24 - MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA