The  (IRAP) and the  (IPIC) have partnered to offer the  program for Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”). IPilogue readers may have seen ’s&�Բ�����; of another CIC program, , which provides funding for a similar purpose through a different government channel. That article outlined the motivation behind these types of programs and summed up that  Canadian SMEs often lack access to the means to protect intellectual property (IP) and highlighted a clear economic need for innovative Canadian businesses to improve their IP commercialization.

NRC IRAP, CIC, and IPIC

The NRC IRAP provides a range of innovation support services for Canadian SMEs. The program offers funding, advisory services, and networking opportunities to help SMEs undertake research and development (“R&D”) and to commercialize, and improve their competitiveness in domestic and global markets. IRAP also provides support for technology adoption, productivity improvement, and business expansion. On February 16, 2023, the Government of Canada announced that NRC IRAP will be integrated into the  (CIC).

The CIC will be a new, operationally independent organization solely dedicated to supporting business R&D across all regions and all sectors of the economy. It is a federal initiative that will be  that aims to “play an important role in building a stronger and more innovative Canadian economy for generations to come.” The CIC will include an umbrella of programs, including both IP Assist and ElevateIP, to support the development and exploitation of IP.

IPIC is Canada’s professional association of patent agents, trademark agents and lawyers practicing in all areas of intellectual property (“IP”) law and is comprised of over 1700 members.  is to match SMEs with IPIC members who practice in their specific industry. The IP professional will help SMEs better understand the key aspects of IP and how it can support their business goals.

The IP Assist Program

There are three levels to the IP Assist Program — levels 1, 2 and 3 (L1, L2, L3, respectively). Each level brings :L1 – up to $1k, L2 – up to $20k, L3 – up to $20k+), as well as increasing engagement with an IP professional matched to the SME:

The L1 IP Awareness is a one-to-one IP awareness session during which an IP professional will provide industry-specific IP information and guidance to an SME. Engagement at L1 provides IP professionals with an opportunity to connect, support and guide innovative Canadian SME to help them achieve their business goals. Engagements with SMEs will take, on average, up to 3 hours and include an IP awareness presentation followed by Q&As.

The L2 IP Strategy relates to the IRAP SME’s specific technology space, aligns with the IRAP SMEs business objectives, and provides IRAP SMEs with specific prioritized IP actions. The IP Strategy must be informed by key relevant information relating to the technology and competitor landscapes relevant to the IRAP SMEs.

The L3 IP Implementation relates to detailed IP asset assessments, such as IP audits, trademark clearance searches, prior art searches and analysis, advice on branding strategy, legal analysis of IP landscaping, patentability analysis, licensing strategy formulation, and other activities. However, some patent and trademark preparation services and filing fees may not be covered.

Conclusion

Canada’s investment in the CIC indicates that there is an increased focus on innovation as a driver of economic growth. There is also a clear aim through programs like IP Assist and ElevateIP to ensure that IP generated by innovative SMEs in Canada are carefully strategized for and well-protected. Hopefully, this increases Canadian presence in innovation and brings greater investment in R&D into Canada.

The post IPIC and National Research Council Collaborates to Create the IP Assist Program for SMEs appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Buda Photography

Jasmine Yu is a Senior Editor and a 2L JD/MBA Candidate at the University of Toronto.

Nancy Chen is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD/MBA Candidate at the University of Toronto.

On November 9, IP Osgoode, Reichman University and Microsoft hosted the first in-person Bracing for Impact Conference since 2019. The conference focused on “The Future of AI for Society.” While AI is full of exciting possibilities, real-world application and integration are relatively nascent. Implementing AI technology in society requires complex interdisciplinary engagement between engineers, social scientists, application area experts, policymakers, users, and impacted communities. At the conference, an esteemed lineup of speakers across disciplines discussed the forms that interdisciplinary collaboration could take and how AI can help shape a more just, equitable, healthy, and sustainable future.

sought to contextualize the promise of AI for the future of urban development and was chaired by Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua, the Mayor of Vaughan. As an elected Mayor, Hon. Bevilacqua put this panel in the context of AI serving the purpose of improving lives — a goal of the of which he and Professor Pina D’Agostino, Founder & Director of IP Osgoode and Bracing for Impact Conference Chair, were a part. The task force identified Smart City opportunities for improving the city through innovation, communication technology, and mobility management — using initiatives to improve road safety, reduce traffic congestion, and encourage residents to participate in active transportation.

Professor Zachary Spicer: Smart Cities – A Unique Challenge

is an Associate Professor at the School of Public Policy and Administration at 91��ɫ. He examined Municipal governments’ capacity for Smart City Development and AI adoption, focusing on the constraints of resources, scale, and provincial legislation.

Professor Spicer viewed that while Smart City technology can provide various benefits, such as the opportunity to maximize budgets and create efficiencies, they also bring a host of novel challenges. For instance, in the context of applying AI to transportation, Professor Spicer emphasized the importance of considering the potential skills and engagement gaps when procuring Smart City technology within municipalities in Canada. We must ensure that the relevant personnel must have the necessary understanding, skills and resources related to AI technology and data governance.

Dr. Vera Roberts: Marginalized Communities and AI

is the Senior Manager of Research, Consulting and Projects at the Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) of OCAD University. She advocated for people with disabilities, identifying that this marginalized community is often excluded from the AI system development process and therefore inadequately represented.��

Dr. Roberts explained that because AI systems are machines, we tend to view these systems as operating on pure logic and immune to human biases. However, she stresses that we must keep in mind that AI systems learn from human data, which can be flawed. We should shift our focus to examining biases within the actual input data training AI systems and whether they accurately represent marginalized groups. Currently, AI systems are largely trained on data from “normal people,” limiting their applicability to people with disabilities. When data is included on people with disabilities, Dr. Roberts comments that it usually only includes the fact that they are different from the standard population. The IDRC has several ongoing projects, such as , targeting these issues and creating more inclusive AI systems.��

Mr. Keith Hemingway: Bringing AI to Utilities

Keith Hemingway is the Head of Advanced Planning at the In his opinion, the biggest change in the AI space right now is the increased accessibility to data that was previously protected and hidden away. As the utilities industry moves towards e-mobility and the electrification of transit and heating, companies need to turn towards AI for new schemes and frameworks to implement these changes.��

However, the use of AI raises new issues concerning data privacy. For example, to increase efficiency in resolving outages, Mr. Hemingway brings up the possibility of using drones to visually scan pole lines to identify the outage-causing fault. In this scenario, there runs a risk of capturing more footage than necessary – instead of just seeing the faulty insulator, the drone might accidentally capture someone’s backyard, thus infringing that individual’s privacy. Ultimately, it boils down to what exactly constitutes data and how utility companies can balance using AI to improve electrical systems for the public good while respecting data privacy boundaries.��

Professor Guy Seidman: Bracing for the Impact of Autonomous Vehicles

is a Professor of Law at the Harry Radzyner Law School of Reichman University. He was extremely passionate about the impending arrival of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), their impacts on our daily lives, and their potential legal ramifications. Professor Seidman recognized that mass electric AV adoption can have benefits such as traffic accident reduction, improved air quality, and freed up urban space from a reduced need for parking spaces (assuming that AVs need not be parked). However, Professor Seidman also identified several barriers to mass AV adoption, including technological feasibility and transition difficulties, wherein different demographics have a differing willingness to trust AVs — the more educated tend to be more accepting of AVs.

Professor Seidman does not anticipate complex legal solutions to questions of accident liability when AVs are involved. Rather, he was optimistic that tort and insurance law will naturally evolve to deal with such issues. He viewed that the more significant discussions revolve around public policy around social and economic ramifications of AV adoption. Finally, Professor Seidman also suggested that we should hesitate to eliminate Traffic Law entirely as AVs become more prevalent, as it is arguably the widest form of legal education. Convincingly, Professor Seidman ended the discussion by concluding that these impending issues must be considered now, so that we are bracing for the impact of incoming AI innovation.

The post IP Osgoode presents: AI for the Future of Urban Development – Smart Cities, Transportation and Sustainability (Panel 1 of the Bracing for Impact Conference) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Anita Gogia is a IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

iRobot Corp was recently issued a against its competitor SharkNinja Operating LLC for . The product in question was the innovative Roomba robotic vacuum and floor cleaning device. While the final decision is yet to be given in , the recent holding recommends an of any infringing SharkNinja devices. Once approved by ITC commissioners in February, this remedy will be enforced regardless of any appeals.

Such a decision is important as it provides credence to the work and intellectual property of iRobot engineers in revolutionizing home cleaning products. The iRobot portfolio consists of other technology innovations and ideas in .

It was found that SharkNinja was infringing two out of the four patents claimed by iRobot. The court found SharkNinja to infringe on two out of four of iRobot’s relevant patents, specifically for . While SharkNinja also infringed a patent for autonomous floor cleaning, there was no determination of a violation as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had . The fourth patent for map-based training was . SharkNinja based their defence on the invalidity of iRobot’s patents. They that the patents were revisions of known technology and that such protection supresses innovation. For example, regarding the mapping patents, SharkNinja says, “”.

In the past, iRobot has applied their patent protections to . The iRobot advanced technologies have justified the high price for their products but have seen a largely due to competition from SharkNinja. In selling their vacuums for below half the price of the Roomba, SharkNinja has grown to be the in North America. According to representatives from iRobot, “”. Shark’s “plan” may work despite this decision, as the ban may not take place until February 2023, well beyond the holiday season when many household gifts such as robotic vacuum cleaners are purchased.

iRobot has revolutionized the home cleaning devices industry. However, a monopoly is typically considered contrary to public interest. One may argue that it is not reasonable for consumers to have no choice but to purchase an expensive robotic vacuum or not have one when a lower-quality and affordable one exists that offers the technology to navigate cleaning areas, autonomous charging, and map floor layouts. Perhaps if a consumer is willing to sacrifice quality to save money in their household, they should be able to.

The post Can There Be Only One Robotic Vacuum On the Market? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Andrew Masson is an IPilogue Writer and 2L JD candidate��at Osgoode Hall Law School.

I recently had the pleasure of interviewing , an experienced lawyer, litigator, self-described “Serial Entrepreneur”, and Founder and CEO of . In her career, Heather-Anne has tackled very diverse roles, including as a successful international tax law litigator. She has also succeeded outside of traditional legal practice. She established a consulting firm in Jersey on the Channel Islands and is now CEO and Founder of a financial services platform (Phundex) operating out of the United Kingdom. She provided great advice both for lawyers that want to practice outside of traditional law firms and for entrepreneurs at all stages. Heather-Anne is an inspirational person, one who encourages you to make the most out of life. Her advice and stories would make you believe that you can accomplish anything.

Heather-Anne spoke of taking risks and not being afraid to face new challenges from a place of experience. She did not start her professional career as a lawyer. She worked for several years before attending Osgoode Hall Law School, where she got her LL.M. in tax at night while continuing to work. She then went on to practice in tax litigation, start a consulting company, and eventually faced her biggest risk and stopped practicing law to focus on Phundex full-time. She said the day she decided to stop practicing law was tough, but she knew the skills she had learned as a lawyer would stay with her for life. This strategic way of thinking allowed her to branch out and explore other interests and take advantage of new opportunities as they arose. She transitioned from one job to another without trouble.����

Many may advise against a major life change like starting your own company after working for ��3 decades as a lawyer. However, Heather-Anne has a unique perspective; she was simply motivated when “an opportunity presented itself that was really interesting!” Through her experience, she recognized that a lot of her work could be simplified and accomplished on a single platform – Phundex.

To protect users’ information, the Phundex platform allows an administrator to control user permissions from the same or different companies to collaborate on the same accounts and documents without compromising other private information. Developing Phundex was an iterative process and there were many steps and failures before reaching the final product. Heather-Anne believed this is an important part of the process and follows the motto of “fail early and fail often” about being an entrepreneur. For example, Phundex spent six months in development to ensure the platform was secure and encountered both failures and corrections to develop a final product having the functionality she envisioned. As a lawyer, Heather-Anne had the experience to understand what was required of her platform in terms of privacy laws. But she kept learning and still sought outside expertise with different parts of this process as needed. As an entrepreneur and lawyer, she stressed that you do not need to know and do everything yourself. It is important to seek help and utilize all resources available to you. For example, through Osgoode, entrepreneurs can use the to get legal IP advice. Additionally, for both lawyers and entrepreneurs, she stressed the importance of building a diverse network of people with different expertise and reaching out to them for advice. Legal work and lawyers tend to be insular, but experts across different areas add value to your network. From a strategic perspective, she encourages everyone to not simply network but to surround themselves with good people who give good advice.

In addition to her practical advice about being a lawyer and an entrepreneur, Heather-Anne also emphasized the importance of being a good person. With her companies and when looking for jobs, she suggests that you should determine what they offer in addition to money, notably in the context of fostering diverse and welcoming spaces. For example, after a co-worker informed her that they found the terms “whitelist”, “masters list”, and “blacklist” derogatory, Heather-Anne banned those terms from being used within her company. Additionally, during Ramadan, she changed her team’s eating habits to be conscious of others' fasting. Heather-Anne believes that these changes ��are “little things, but really important to other people”. Heather-Anne provided some excellent life advice: build a network, ask about opportunities that intrigue you, empathize with others, and fail early and often. For anyone feeling unsure about their future, Heather-Anne’s story shows that you can take chances on opportunities you find interesting.

On behalf of the IPilogue Team, I am especially grateful to Heather-Anne Hubbell for her time. I would also like to thank 91��ɫ’s Provost, Lisa Phillips, and the Provost’s Office for introducing us to Heather-Anne and helping us arrange this interview.

The post Pursuing Your Passions with Heather-Anne Hubbell appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Junghi Woo is a former IPilogue Content Manager, an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s Directed Reading: IP Innovation Program course.

In 2020, a South Korean television and radio network,����that revealed one family’s journey in recreating their 7-year-old deceased daughter, Na-Yeon, through the technology of virtual reality (“VR”). VIVE Studios, a VR technology studio, used����to create this VR character.����

While this technology may not be as common in Canada, we should nonetheless consider the implications of introducing such innovations, especially when it involves minors. In fact, there exist several legal implications within Intellectual Property law (“IP”), such as the common law principle of personality rights.����In the case of Na-Yeon, her personality rights were used to recreate her VR persona.��

In Ontario, there exists a lack of legislation regarding the protection of both non-celebrity minors’ and adults’ personality rights. This presents a concern with the growing posthumous market and the commercialization of personality rights and potentially, of individuals’ digital assets used to “revive” the dead.��

Such technology is not novel. For example,����through his past text messages with his friends and family members. By using artificial neural networks,��. The result was fairly accurate and allegedly helped Mazureko’s loved ones’ grieving process. Companies such as����already have a patent that could create a digital clone that embodies people’s “mental attributes”.����a New Zealand-based software company, markets “digital humans” for enhanced online customer service.��

With Kanye West’s gift to his ex-wife Kim Kardashian��, and a��” industry derived from the pandemic, the posthumous artificial intelligence market is not too far from our futures. Firms such as����offer online chat bots based on one’s digital footprint to keep the bereaved to “stay in touch” with the deceased.��

Along with significant privacy concerns regarding the collection and use of individuals’ digital assets, the commercialization of such IP brings us additional questions regarding the safety of its target market. Mainly targeting grieving people, it is questionable as to whether companies will avoid exploiting the vulnerability of their emotional states and if they are able to deliver their services and products without risking their customers’ mental health. Those who grieve may seek to reconnect with the deceased and companies can monetize this vulnerability not only through their products, but their targeted advertisements. The possibility of the bereaved becoming attached to these recreations is another danger to consider. Without proactive legislation, we leave not only the deceased unprotected but the bereaved as well.����

The real question is, what would you risk to see your lost one once more?��

The post Commercializing the Personalities of the Dead: The Dangers of the Posthumous Market appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Screenshots from and .

Claire Wortsman is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

As the election nears, my colleague Shawn Dhue and I are looking at the major parties’ plans for Canada in IP-related areas. This article will cover the platforms of Erin O’Toole and the Conservative Party of Canada as well as Jagmeet Singh and the New Democratic Party. For information on the Liberals and Green Party, check out Shawn’s article. Below are select pieces of and that address the CPC and NDP’s plans for Canadian IP and related areas respectively.

COVID-Related Trade Policy

• Reinstate the tariff on imported PPE.
• Support the Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights Waiver (TRIPS) to waive IP rights for COVID vaccines and ensure technology transfer between nations.

Media Policy ��

• Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure platforms like Google and Facebook compensate Canadian media outlets for the sharing of their content. This will include a robust arbitration process and the creation of IP right for article extracts shared on social media platforms.����
• Make sure that Netflix, Facebook, Google, and other digital media companies play by the same rules as Canadian broadcasters.

Privacy Policy

• Pass strong legislation to protect privacy more effectively.
• Work to strengthen privacy protections for Canadians by updating privacy legislation to include a digital bill of privacy rights and boost the powers of the Privacy Commissioner to make and enforce orders, as well as levy fines and penalties.

Data Policy

• Create a technology task force within the Competition Bureau to examine whether dominance and anti-competitive behaviour of big tech is damaging to Canadian industries.
• Examine how algorithms and data give big tech an advantage over Canadian businesses, as well as how fintech and new technologies could foster competition.
• Prioritize the collection of race-based data on health, employment, policing and more with the goal of improving outcomes for racialized communities.

Innovation Policy

• Launch a review of innovation programs at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and across the government and, among other things, implement requirements:
  • All recipients demonstrate that IP, production, ownership, and profits are likely to stay in Canada; and
  • All IP developed with the support of the Canadian government is held by a Canadian entity and that recipients agree to pay back the subsidy if they sell the IP to a foreign buyer.
• Invest $5 billion over the next 5 years to fund programs in: Use of hydrogen; Small Modular Reactors; Private sector innovation in the space sector; Electric vehicle development and manufacturing, including electric trucks, micro-mobility, batteries, and parts manufacturers; and pharmaceutical research and production.
• Restore the Automotive Innovation Fund and make contributions to automakers tax-free.

Jobs/Labour Policy

• Pay up to 50% of the salary of new hires for 6 months following the end of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy
• Invest in forestry innovation and support value-added Canadian wood products – and the good jobs that go with them.
• Support more options for women to build careers in the trades and other non-traditional fields like agriculture, innovation, research, and STEM.
• Support paid sick leave and prescription drug coverage.

Environmental Policy

• Implementing an affordable carbon price: Starting at $20/tonne and increasing to $50/tonne but no further.
• Work with the provinces to implement a national Personal Law Carbon Savings Account that consumers can pay into each time they buy hydrocarbon-based fuel. They can then put this money towards things that help them live a greener life (e.g., buying a transit pass or bicycle).
• Make Canada an innovation leader on methane reduction in areas such as:
  • Real-time monitoring for a leakage detection;
  • Ensuring that provincial methane regulations are genuinely equivalent with the federal regulations; and
  • Increasing the ambition of those targets in the 2025-30 period.
• Create a National Crisis Strategy to help communities reduce and respond to climate risks, as well as a new Climate Corps of young workers to respond to climate impacts and build an equitable clean-energy economy.

Foreign Policy

• Protect Canadian IP with a strengthened that includes, among other things:
  • A presumption against allowing the takeover of Canadian companies by China’s designated state-owned entities; and
  • A reformed “net benefits” test to better account for the potential effects of a transaction on the broader innovation ecosystem with a particular focus on protecting IP and human capital.
• Revoke visas of Chinese nationals identified by national security agencies as conducting espionage or stealing IP.
• Adopt measures to stabilize the Canadian steel market and protect the sector from predatory practices of foreign producers who are shut out of other markets.

The post The Parties’ Plans for IP: CPC & NDP appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by: (Unsplash)

Harman Mann is a Guest Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School

The titles "Dieselgate" and "Emissionsgate" have become synonymous with the shocking Volkswagen Emissions scandal. What happened, you may ask? In 2015, Volkswagen admitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it had . These defeat devices consisted of software that recognized testing conditions (i.e., emissions tests) and triggered a vehicle to enter 'limp' mode. In this limp condition, a vehicle would reduce engine output and spew an acceptable amount of toxic nitrogen oxide (NOx). If the vehicle was not under testing conditions, it would continue .

After five years, the Ontario Court of Justice fined Volkswagen AG an . This article will undertake an analysis of Canada's response by canvassing the decision's positive and negative implications.��

The Positives of the Ontario Court of Justice Ruling

Stringent Environmental Protection

The first positive aspect of the decision is that the court has sternly warned the auto industry against tricking consumers and 'greenwashing' their dirty vehicles.��R v Volkswagen��set a precedent for giving the largest environmental fine in Canadian history as the fine ��and easily eclipses the by "approximately 26 times". This hefty fine reflects that Ontario is continuing to police environmental pollution since - an excellent sign for the eco-justice warriors out there!

The Death of Diesel

Furthermore, the ruling comes at a critical time in the auto industry, where the 'death of diesel' is coupled with the rise of electric cars. Volkswagen had undertaken an elaborate 'greenwashing' campaign to dupe consumers out of their hard-earned money. Many believed they were driving an eco-friendly car due to the company’s advertisements, which altered society's understanding of diesel engines as noisy and polluting. An example of this is the , wherein a sweet-old lady places her new white scarf against the exhaust of Diesel Volkswagen and anecdotally shows there are no black marks. This ruling puts the final nail in the coffin for diesel technology and warns automotive giants about turning consumers away from greener transportation methods like electric vehicles.��

Corporate Responsibility

Volkswagen had undertaken various justification to diffuse responsibility for the cheat device, including the 'few bad apples' approach. Volkswagen America CEO Michael Horn claimed that rather than admitting a systemic issue in the company. However, Justice Rondinelli , that "this was a very sophisticated illegal scheme. It was far from a simple plan like surreptitiously dumping pollutants in a river under [the] cover of darkness. The deception in this case was prolonged, involved complex technology, and spanned throughout the [globe]". The ruling makes it clear that Volkswagen as an entity contravened the law and provided accountability to big corporations, who often receive a 'slap on the wrist' for their deviances.��

What are the Negatives?

A Lacklustre Response

Although the decision emphasized corporate responsibility, it overlooked individual responsibility in comparison to other countries' responses. In Germany, executives were hunted down, including the who was liable for over $14 million for his role in the scandal and now faces charges for fraud. The United States imprisoned a high-ranking executive, . The Canadian fine looks meagre in comparison.��

The Theoretical Issue with Joint Submissions

In the Ontario Court of Justice ruling, the Crown and Volkswagen AG made a joint submission regarding the fine, and as per�� at paragraph 34, the trial judge could not depart from the submission unless it brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Bringing any form of harsher punishment would be extremely difficult as the record-setting fine will clearly signal ��

A joint submission, however, is somewhat perverse in allowing an offender to influence their sentence. American Sociologist Edwin Sutherland harkens to this issue as he argues that white-collar crimes . Offenders involved in street crime frequently .��

The ruling leaves many at a crossroads, and the question I pose is: Which side do you fall on? Maybe the court of public opinion can decide on this controversial issue and whether the fine for Volkswagen AG is adequate.

The post The Death of Diesel: The Controversy Surrounding R v Volkswagen AG appeared first on IPOsgoode.

If you have not yet registered for our event, make sure you do so BEFORE 9:00 am (EST). You can also read about our esteemed lineup of speakers ��before the event begins.

We are grateful to both and the for their help in promoting our event.

If you cannot join us live, a recording of the webinar will be available after the broadcast through our website. We would like to thank everyone involved in helping us make this event a reality, including our collaborators at IDC Herzliya, Microsoft Canada, and Alectra's GRE&T Centre, and we look forward to presenting this fascinating event!

The post LAST CHANCE TO REGISTER - Bracing for Impact Webinar: AI's Dirty Footprint appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Junghi Woo is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

The 2021 Innovation Economy Council (“IEC”) Roundtable an exciting discussion around the commercialization of intellectual property in Canada. IP rights can be incredibly important to a business’ corporate strategy both during and after product development. Opening up a corporation’s IP can even be advantageous in fields such as quantum computing.

Several leading professionals provided their unique perspectives on the topic: Rhonda O’Keefe (VP, Intellectual Property & Contracts, NGEN), Darren Anderson (CEO, Vive Crop Protection), David Asgeirsson (Manager, Partnerships & IP, Xanadu), Domenic Di Mondo (VP, Technology & Business Development, GreenMantra Technologies), Mike Wessinger (CEO, PointClickCare), Krista Jones (VP, Momentum, MaRS), Frank Rudzicz (Director of AI, Surgical Safety Technology), and George Tsintzouras (CEO and co-founder, AlertLabs). The panel was hosted by Manjula Selvarajah (Journalist & Tech Columnist, CBC Radio).

Though many questions were raised, two in particular stuck out: 1) why are so many patents held by venture-capital-backed Canadian startups in foreign hands, and 2) is this concerning?

What Role Does IP Play In Corporations?

While many may assume that patents are the only and most effective way to protect a corporation’s IP, this may not hold true for every product. For example, although Di Mondo uses patent protection in his company GreenMantra Technologies, he also leverages trade secrets. Patent protection and trade secrets provide different types of protection, depending on the goal. When applying for a patent, Di Mondo recommends asking why and determining how to maximize the value of such protection. Companies must consider the substantial time and money required to obtain a patent, and if it fits within their business strategy. Alternatively, protecting IP with trade secrets requires a plan on how the trade secrets will be effectively protected. This involves deciding how to collect and store the data, determining who has access to company trade secrets, and drafting confidentiality agreements.

For some industries, patents are essential. As Anderson emphasized, since patents are more IP-focused and highly regulated, most of the value and growth of his company Vive Crop Protection is derived from its patent portfolio.

On the other hand, technology industries, such as software providers, barely touch on patent registration. Wessinger explained that a company would have to spend too much money and time in patent registration to be worth it. The technology industry, especially software, moves too rapidly for patent protection to be effective. Barrie McKenna, author of the IEC reports, added that companies do not patent because their products are not so different than others in the marketplace, or they cannot be bothered by the timely expense when the secret to their success is their customers. In contrast, Wessigner’s company, PointClickCare, mostly focuses on copyright and trade secrets and so it invests most of its time and resources into Research and Development to stay ahead of the competition.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (“SME”) may not be aware of their IP rights and the steps they can take to protect them. A recent report to the Government of Ontario by the Expert Panel on Intellectual Property

The Current Situation

Since 2017, According to the 2021 IEC Report,

Why Are Foreign Hands So Full?

The IEC report found that the lack of Canadian patent ownership is . Financing is incredibly important for startups to scale up and commercialize their innovation, and if they cannot find sufficient support in Canada, they must look elsewhere. This is one of the many reasons why Canada has become a source, but not a destination, for innovation.

As shown through the many takeovers happening in Canada, talent is clearly not an issue. What is missing are the anchor companies and investors that would support Canadian SMEs to their later-stage growth.

Should we be Concerned About Increasing Foreign Ownership?

��Jones commented that to realize the economic benefits of Canadian innovations and protect the innovative work developed within Canada’s innovation ecosystem, national ownership may be essential in certain instances. To encourage national ownership, companies need the ability to remain headquartered in Canada with the support of Canadian acquirers.

On the other hand, while Tsintzouras’s Alert Labs has U.S. ownership, he still keeps his operations based in Canada. “We remained a Canadian company, we remain here, we still employ people here, we still grow, but we looked at what the best chance for our technology to make it to market and grow in scale,” commented Tsintzouras. He also highlighted a major aspect that is often overlooked when examining foreign takeovers: the company’s access to the U.S. owner’s network. The connections that the U.S. owners provided Alert Labs significantly contributed to its ability to enter certain markets and capitalize on certain opportunities. Rudzicz agreed and claimed that foreign ownership would not be a problem if the people and data stayed in Canada post-takeover.

So, What’s the Answer?

To take advantage of developing Canadian IP, we need to support IP commercialization, not or patent sales to prevent foreigners from acquiring Canadian IP. ��

In achieving this goal, Canadian policymakers play an important role. Their in encouraging Canadian buyers, such as tax breaks and grants, have proven successful. However, the current numbers show that we need more sustained support for our scaling companies. ����

Overall, further supporting national IP commercialization instead of penalizing foreign takeovers seems to be the answer. Or perhaps Canada can take Alert Labs’s approach and encourage foreign takeovers but put policies in place to encourage growth and development within Canada. Whatever the approach is, we must act quickly as these takeovers will only increase Canada’s ever-growing opportunity costs.

The post Summarizing the 2021 Innovation Economy Council Roundtable appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On April 19, 2021, the Government of Canada announced its����(Budget 2021) with goals to finish the fight against COVID-19, ensure a strong economic recovery, and position Canada for a prosperous future. To accomplish its objectives, the government has����for proposed expenditures in the areas of intellectual property (IP) and technology.

Budget 2021 will build on the National Intellectual Property Strategy of Budget 2018 by funding Canadian innovators, start-ups, and technology-intensive businesses. This includes providing $75 million for the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program to assist high-growth client firms with obtaining access to IP services.

Budget 2021 also proposes to use $90 million to establish the ElevateIP program, which will help accelerators and incubators provide IP services to start-up companies. These direct investments are complemented by the launching of a Strategic Intellectual Property Program Review to conduct a broad assessment of IP provisions in Canada’s innovation and science programming, including both basic research and near-commercial projects.

Alongside its general IP investment plan, the Government of Canada has allocated funding to various technology initiatives in Budget 2021, such as proposing:

• $5 billion over seven years towards the adoption of clean technology through the Net Zero Accelerator program;
• $500 million over five years, starting in 2021-2022, and $100 million per year ongoing, to expand the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program, which is poised to give up to 2,500 innovative small and medium-sized firms expertise and capital to scale up their businesses;
• $443.8 million over ten years for the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy to support research and innovation in the artificial intelligence sector;
• $360 million over seven years to launch a National Quantum Strategy that will assist researchers studying quantum technology and establish a secretariat at the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to coordinate efforts in this space;
• $90 million over five years for the National Research Council to modernize the Canadian Photonics Fabrication Centre;
• $400 million over six years to launch a Pan-Canadian Genomics Strategy to develop therapeutics and create jobs in the field, including allocating $136.7 million for Genome Canada to deliver mission-driven programming directed at starting the initiative; and
• $2.2 billion over seven years towards Canada’s life science sector, including allocating resources to support Canadian firms through the Strategic Innovation Fund and creating a Clinical Trials Fund to assist in the research and development of treatments in the health field, including the pharmaceutical sector.

Written by M. Imtiaz Karamat, Osgoode Alumni and Student-at-Law at Deeth Williams Wall LLP.

The post The Government Of Canada’s 2021 Budget Proposes Building An Innovation Economy Of The Future appeared first on IPOsgoode.