Gurbir Sidhu Image

Gurbir Sidhu

Intellectual Property Specialist

Own Innovation

Gurbir Sidhu is an Intellectual Property Specialist based in Canada, currently working at Own Innovation, an IP services firm. Previously, he offered services as a patent agent and lawyer in India. His work includes patent drafting and prosecution, building smart IP portfolios and robust IP strategies for innovation-led companies. He is also a computer science engineer and worked as a software developer before transitioning into law.

 

Recent Articles by Gurbir Sidhu

Streamlining Patent Examination: Amendments to Canada’s Patent Rules Coming Into Effect Soon

Responding to the patent term adjustment obligation under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and to “streamline the patent examination process”, the Canadian government has registered major changes to the Canadian Patent Rules. The amendments will come into effect on October 3, 2022, and include notable modifications to the patent application examination process, such as establishing excess claim fees for over 20 claims, fees for continuing examination beyond three office actions, and offering conditional notice of allowance.

Canadian Federal Court Sets a New Subject-Matter Eligibility Test for Computer-Implemented Inventions

Clearing the air on labyrinthine subject-matter eligibility standards for computer-implemented inventions (CIIs), a Canadian Federal Court last month revisited the issue in Benjamin Moore & Co. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2022 FC 923. In its decision, the court, while setting a new test, rejected, for the second time, a problem-solution approach to claim construction followed by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) in examining patent applications. The appeal was filed against decisions by the Canadian Commissioner of Patents finding two Canadian Patent Applicants numbered 2,695,130 and 2,695,146 as patent ineligible under sections 2 and 27(8) of the Canadian Patent Act. Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (“IPIC”), an IP policy advocacy organization, intervened in the appeal proceedings, affirming that the appeal raised a fundamental question of Canadian Patent Law.