<html><head></head><body><div class="yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I have a question for any Canada-licensed patent attorney on this list.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Background --> Canada has a known challenge related to double patenting, and unlike USA there is no objection of submitting a terminal disclaimer to obvvercome.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">As such it is not uncommon for applicants to provoke a 'unity of invention' objection - the CA examiner then splits it up into many inventions, and then neither of them </div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">can be references against each other for double patenting. Then the applicant just file many divisionals..</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">My issue -> <span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">PCT entered Canadian national phase. Applicant has now split it up into 7 inventions.</span></span></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I think if I then file 6 divisionals at ONCE, I am OK - the unity of invention objection would protect these divisionals from each other (and from the PCT national phase filing)</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">with respect to Canadian double patenting. However, that is a lot of cash paid now, instead of 'spacing it out' over years.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">MY QUESTION --> instead of filing 6 divisionals at ONCE (i.e. in parallel), could I do it in SERIAL (i.e. first a divisional, and then a divisional of divisional, and then a divisional of divisional of divisional), and so one.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">If I file in SERIAL (i.e. 1st generation DIV, then 2nd generation DIV), would I achieve the 'benefit' of immunity from double patenting in Canada based on the </div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">'large unity of invention requirement' in the PCT national phase filing.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I hope this was clear - it is NUANCED, and I hope I successfully explained the issues.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">NOTE -- some jurisdictions like Japan treat divisionals and divisionals-of-divisionals the SAME. In other jurisdictions (e.g. China) there is a disctinction.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Thanks,</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Bill</div></div></body></html>