Federal Court of Canada provides narrow interpretation of the scope of Patent Agent Privilege

law books

One does not need to be a legal scholar to know that confidential communications between lawyers and their clients for the purpose of seeking and giving legal advice are generally privileged.  The so-called “solicitor-client” privilege is a cornerstone of law and allows clients and their lawyers to freely discuss legal issues without unintended disclosures.  Thus, apart from certain exceptions, Canadian courts will not compel production of privileged communications such as emails, letters and reports exchanged between clients and their lawyers for the purpose of legal advice.

For years, this special treatment did not attach to communications between clients and their patent agents.  This was problematic because patent agents often provide equally strategic and sensitive advice and opinions in the specific area of patents.  As a result, it was common practice to channel such communications through lawyers to shroud these under solicitor-client privilege.

In 2016, the Patent Act was amended to establish privilege for communications between a registered Canadian or foreign patent agent and their clients or client representatives. Section 16.1 of the Patent Act, entitled “Privileged Communications”, now protects communications for the purpose of seeking or giving advice with respect to any matter “…relating to the protection of an invention”.

On November 19, 2021, the Federal Court narrowly interpreted the meaning of “relating to the protection of an invention” and the scope of patent agent privilege.[1]  At issue was a document in which a patent agent provided advice to his client (employer) as to whether certain chemical compounds were outside the scope of patent rights owned by a third party. In denying privilege, the Court held that:

“Had Parliament intended to attach privilege to any and all communications between patent agents and their clients, it would have used language broader than “protection”. Instead, Parliament chose to limit patent agent privilege to a narrower class of communications.”

In the same decision, other documents were found to be under privilege because they related to the protection of the client’s patent rights. Thus, communications related to the protection of a client’s invention will generally be protected by patent agent-client privilege while communications related to a third party’s invention will not.

The take-home message from this decision is that privilege may fail to attach to some patent agent communications when providing advice that does not relate squarely to the “protection” of a client’s patent rights (e.g., non-infringement opinions and patent strategy). To attach and maintain privilege, it remains relevant to consider involving Canadian or foreign lawyers when communicating on issues outside of the “protection” of a client’s invention.  Also, for privilege to attach, the communications must be intended to be confidential.  Worth noting, patent agent privilege will be lost if the client expressly or implicitly waives privilege such as by disclosing documents to third parties without special precautions being put in place beforehand.

Learn more about our patent practice.


[1]Federal Court of Canada” ruling. Hosted on fasken.com for reference. Please go to Federal Court – Home (fct-cf.gc.ca) for more details.

Partner, Trademark Agent, Patent Agent at Fasken | Website | + posts

Mark D. Penner’s practice focuses on all aspects of the acquisition, protection, enforcement and strategic use of a wide range of intellectual property assets in Canada and around the world.

Jason Markwell partner
Jason Markwell
Partner at Fasken | Website | + posts

Jason Markwell is a leading intellectual property litigator in Canada.  He represents domestic and multinational corporations in a wide-range of industries, including life sciences, technology, financial services, manufacturing, mining and energy. He is well-known for his work on behalf of innovative pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in patent infringement and regulatory disputes. He also provides advice in regard to the protection and enforcement of trade marks, copyright and trade secrets.