Patent Information
Patent Searches
Filing Applications
Litigation News
Domain Names
Anti-Cybersquatting Law
Who We Are
Filing Canadian Patent Applications

We can act as your resident Canadian representatives and efile your Canadian patent application.  To get started, please call us at:




Canadian Patent Act, Section 29(1) states:
An applicant for a patent who does not appear to reside or carry on business at a specified address in Canada shall, on the filing date of the application, appoint as a representative a person or firm residing or carrying on business at a specified address in Canada.

INTELLIGUARD CORP. is willing to act as a foreign inventor's representative for service in Canada. Our initial fee for this service is $300, plus $75 per year thereafter, for the life of the patent application/registration. The inventor(s) or their assignees must keep us updated with their email and street addresses. We will efile an inventor's Canadian patent application for $250 plus HST (13% Harmonized Good & Services Tax), plus the Canadian Patent Office's filing fee of $200. A quote on amendments required for a written description in an application can be provided upon request.

You may send us your home or other foreign country priority information and previously filed patent application by email .

Canadian Patent Application Process and fees

USPTO Patent fees

Patent Attorney Mark Bergner provided the following five points that may help independent inventors control the cost of their patent application.   

Many small inventors contact me for preparing a patent application and asking that costs be kept to an absolute minimum. Recognizing that most such inventors do not have a great deal of money, I usually offer the following advice:

1) Provide me with the best write-up that you can up front with some illustrative (even hand-sketched) diagrams, along with any design documents you may have.

Often, inventors will provide a one-page summary or a sales brochure of their invention that leaves out a significant amount of detail. It is going to drive up costs if I have to drag each and every relevant aspect of the invention out. Additionally, there may be ample design documents that are provided to me after a significant amount of work has already been done. It will take much more effort for me to integrate this newly added information with a nearly complete draft specification than it would have taken if all information had been provided up front.

2) Try to do as much of the work as you can yourself.

I tell clients that I am knowledgeable in patent prosecution, but generally not knowledgeable about the subject matter of the invention. It will cost considerably more if I am required to do extensive research in the field of the invention in order to fill in a sparse invention disclosure. I will often point inventors to a patent in their general field and suggest that the detailed description and figures shown in the patent provide roughly the level of detail needed for their patent application. While I am not expecting draftsman-quality drawings and use of the words "wherein" and "said" in their description, I am expecting something more than a 3-block single figure illustrating a complex client-server architecture.

Also, there are many inventors who are wonderful technical people, but simply cannot communicate well in writing (that's why they majored in physics and not journalism). It might be a good idea for such an inventor to work with someone (under a confidentiality agreement) who can write well to prepare an initial description. I had an inventor who enlisted the support of a graduate student at a significantly lower hourly rate than I charge. Although I can get all of the relevant information by talking with the inventor in person and over the telephone, if that is the sole means that I have of obtaining descriptive information, it is going to cost more. If the inventor has difficulty in communicating ideas and concepts both in writing and orally, it is going to be a very expensive patent application--no two ways about it.

3) Provide me with a nearly completed concept of the invention.

Nothing drives up costs more than to have the inventor continue to invent as the application is being drafted. One common issue: if a patent attorney does a good job with the subject matter, the draft of the patent application may be the first time the inventor has ever seen his idea expressed in such a clear and organized manner. This may spawn the inventor to come up with alternate embodiments or to provide other features that might prevent a design-around. While I generally expect some minor refinement of an inventive concept during the course of preparing the application, the addition of completely new or different embodiments will substantially increase costs.

4) Answer any questions provided in a draft clearly and completely.

Often I will prepare a draft application with a number of questions or comments, requesting clarification or additional detail. Some questions are intended to solicit lengthy responses, but only a bare minimum is provided or, worse, the information provided is completely non-responsive. Example: "You indicated that a series of messages flow between the client and server in order to implement the invention, but you have not provided any description as to what these messages are or what they contain. Can you please provide me with a detailed description of these, possibly with a table or diagram?" The entire reply received back: "The messages contain information that allows the server to act on client requests." Very often I have an inventor who promises to do most of the work themselves, only to put forth a minimal effort when asked to provide additional information.

5) The costs of obtaining a patent, even a relatively complex one, pale in comparison to the costs you will encounter in trying to commercialize your product.

I know I'm in trouble with an inventor if I throw out a fair cost estimate for preparing an application and the inventor breaks out in a cold sweat and starts suggesting a cost that is 50% of the estimate. It's one thing for an experienced business professional to haggle for lower costs, but in most situations involving the individual inventor, there is a significant lack of appreciation for what it will cost to do prototyping or pilot production runs, legal costs associated with non-disclosure agreements, trademarks, production and supply agreements, Underwriters Laboratories certification, FDA approval, etc. In the vast majority of cases, it is very expensive to bring an inventive idea to the marketplace, and the patent costs are typically a minimal part of those costs. If the inventor is not prepared for the entire undertaking, he is probably not going to willingly and cheerfully pay the bills, regardless of the quality and efficiency of the work done.

In preparing a patent
application, we seek to realize many objectives, comprising:

1. Describing the invention so that those of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains can understand it;

2. Teaching how to practice the invention;

3. Explaining the invention in such terms that a judge and a jury will be impressed by the value of the invention;

4. Claiming the invention sufficiently broadly so that the most talented experts in the field cannot design around the claims for the next twenty years, even when millions of dollars in sales and royalties are at stake;

5. Claiming the invention sufficiently narrowly so that all prior art is not encompassed by the claims. This includes the prior art already known to the patent practitioner, and unknown prior art. The unknown prior art can include existing documents not found by a novelty search and "incubating" prior art such as pending United States patent applications and inventions by others under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g);

6. Claiming the invention so that those elements that render the invention ”non-obvious" are set forth in the claims;

7. Claiming the invention so that a patent will be issued by the Patent Office, and its validity will be sustained by the courts, even though the Patent Office will give the claim language its "broadest reasonable interpretation" and the courts will not;

8. Including only truthful and accurate statements in the application, so that none of the statements could possibly mislead the examiner, and the inventors will not be embarrassed by cross-examination during litigation;

9. Describing all features of the invention that may be needed to obtain allowance of the claims, even when the inventor does not appreciate the importance of those features;

10. Describing the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention; and

11. Preparing an application suitable as a vehicle for foreign filing.

The art of writing patent applications is taught by a combination of the "mentor" system and osmosis - learning the hard way - by writing applications. Typically, a new attorney or agent is handed a stack of prior art, an invention disclosure, and starts writing.

Many law schools provide a course in patent law. The purpose of most of these courses is not to teach how to write a patent application, but rather to understand the substantive law of patents. It is, of course, necessary to know patent law to write a good patent application. The requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 need to be fully appreciated in order to write a good specification. However, knowledge of the substantive law of patents is not the same as knowing how to write a competent patent application. In fact, there are many excellent patent lawyers who litigate patent issues with great skill. Many of those lawyers, if pressed into service to write patent applications, would be lost.

It typically takes at least six months, and usually about two years, of practice and training before someone can learn to write a competent application on his/her own.  If you want to learn how, consider purchasing the following books:

by Jeffrey G. Sheldon
Copyright 2000 by Practising Law Institute. All Rights Reserved

Patent Fundamentals for Scientists and Engineers
                 by Thomas T. Gordon, Arthur S. Cookfair

Copyright © 1999-2008 INTELLIGUARD CORP. All rights reserved.
Questions? Send us an email: info @ intelliguard.com.