Qualcomm Incorporated v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2016 FC 499

Qualcomm sought to remove a named inventor who was added to a patent through inadvertence or mistake. The named inventor provided affidavit evidence that he is not an inventor and consented to being removed as an inventor from a patent.

In removing the inventor, the Court noted that section 31(3) of the Patent Act has two parts: i) evidence that an inventor had no part in the invention and ii) that the remaining applicant(s) are the sole inventors. In this proceeding, the Court only had evidence from the named inventor and the Applicant's Patent Counsel. That evidence did not clearly state that the remaining co-inventors are the sole inventors.

In its view, the Court held that evidence as to the remaining inventors is essentially a housekeeping requirement for the Patent Office that is not relevant when an issued patent is being considered by the Court.

Accordingly, the Order issued notwithstanding the evidence was silent as to whether the remaining inventors were the sole inventors.