Androu Waheeb is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

Gone are the days when businesses were valued by their ability to market tangible goods. and reported that intangible assets (IP and data) are crucial to wealth creation and represent the “world’s most valuable business and national security assets.” In 2019, they accounted for 91% of the S&P500’s value. Canada has struggled to meaningfully partake in this intangible economy.

Canada’s patent portfolio is incommensurate with its enviable workforce and publicly funded research. Domestically, Canadian patent filings decreased by 3% annually and 7% in the last ten years. Non-resident filings swelled by 1% and 4%, respectively. In 2019, Canadians contributed 12% of the patents filed in Canada, whereas Americans accounted for half. Contrarily, reports that Americans owned 60% of patents filed in the USA.

Internationally, Canadian patent filings decreased after 2012, stagnated after 2014, and are geographically clustered. In 2018, 2/3 of Canadian international applications were filed in the USA – a meagre 2% of applications filed there.

Canada’s struggle to protect ideas has dire economic consequences. As Canada’s IP footprint diminishes, Canadian corporate operations face increasingly onerous restrictions, with portfolios too anemic to leverage. Consequentially, our GDP per capita has declined by 3% since 2010 and job quality by 15% since the 1980s. New jobs generate 2/3 of the income they did in the 1980s.

and blamed this on deficiencies in IP awareness, access, resources, expertise, capacity, laws, and funding. Neither report performed competent modelling or statistical analysis, which led to inadequate recommendations. To implement those recommendations, Canada developed the ; Ontario established the and .

Meanwhile, Peter Nicholson of the blamed Canada’s inability to foster and retain innovative corporations. The technology sector, a driver for innovation, contributes only 5% of the . Conversely, the 75 technology corporations in the constitute 1/3 of the index. Without innovative corporations to develop IP, Canada will never amass the portfolio it deserves. Public funds and talent earmarked for innovation will benefit other economies to the detriment of our own, cementing Canada as an innovation farm for hire.

Innovation emigrates from Canada because of what calls its “buy versus make” economic structure which results in passive posturing and ambivalence about market dominance in Canadian C-suites. Canada’s refusal to acclimate to new global economic realities disincentivizes local innovation independently of the patent system, and the “trend of investment in innovation is not encouraging.”

Canadian innovations’ short-lived victories exemplify this. and revolutionized telecommunications, yet their failure to continue innovating led to their demise. Canada’s abandonment of the shuttered .

Canada must foster a fertile corporate environment and broad innovation incentive structures to fend off the pending economic degradation. All policy instruments must be recruited, including taxation, trade, and regulation. Unfortunately, the current strategy of developing IP awareness, access, resources, and law alone will not suffice.

The post Like a Moth to the Flame: Attract Corporations and IP Will Come appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Xiang is an IPilogue Writer, a Senior Fellow with the IP Innovation Clinic, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

For the first time in decades, the US Supreme Court will engage with enablement in patent applications. On November 4th, 2022, the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen v Sanofi, against the . Specifically, Amgen seeks to appeal a , in which the court found Amgen’s patents invalid for lack of enablement.��

The requirement of enablement in US patent law is codified in , which requires that the specification of a patent application “enable any person skilled in the art…to��make and use” the invention in question. The in Amgen v Sanofi is whether this statutory requirement governs enablement (that the specification teaches those skilled in the art to “make and use” the claimed invention) or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art “to reach the full scope of the claimed embodiments” without “undue experimentation” (characterized by substantial “time and effort”).��

In 2014, Amgen sued Sanofi for infringing on its patents concerning drugs for lowering cholesterol. The genus patents specifically cover that bind to the PCSK9 protein in the body. The patents disclose the amino acid sequences for 26 antibodies that bind to one or more of 15 residues found on the PCSK9 protein. Importantly, the claims at issue are considered , in which the antibodies are not claimed based on their structural components but rather on what they do.��

On January 3rd, 2023, many interested parties submitted to offer the Supreme Court their take on the issue to be considered. For instance, in a brief submitted by a group of , it was argued that the Federal Circuit’s standard imposes “an impossible burden” on patentees and that such a decision represents “a categorical shift in thinking away from teaching the PHOSITA and towards a precise delineation of the boundaries of the claim”. The professors further submitted that such a heightened requirement would be especially burdensome for patentees seeking to protect their innovations in the fields of chemistry and the life sciences, as “a chemical genus with any decently large number of species will never be able to satisfy the new enablement standard”.��

Other parties in support of Amgen presented some other reasons as well. In their amicus brief, the stated that the court’s reasoning “leaves patent practitioners guessing about how to advise client-inventors regarding the extent of disclosure required”. The , warned of the adverse impact that the new enablement requirement might have on the effectiveness of patent incentives for investors to contribute towards research and development, especially in the case of startups and smaller companies.

Moreover, the has filed a motion for leave to participate in oral argument, claiming a “paramount and unique institutional interest and perspective” – that is, the perspective of individuals and companies working in the chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology fields. CHAL asserts that the Federal Circuit’s enablement standard potentially jeopardizes the benefits of many modern innovations and that adhering to the plain meaning of 35 USC s. 112 should continue to be the prevailing approach.

The Supreme Court’s decision regarding the enablement standard for functional claims could also have wide-reaching implications that spill over into other fields, such as technology and computer-implemented inventions. By too narrowly focusing on the “full scope of the claim” and “undue experimentation” instead of on what those skilled in the art could determine from the specification, it is unclear how broader claims for (such as those that describe the desired result to be achieved by the AI rather than its structural components or any specific software solutions) might fare in the face of such a standard.��

Amgen v Sanofi is scheduled to be heard by the US Supreme Court in the upcoming Spring Term.

The post US Supreme Court to Deal with the Patent Enablement Standard appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Meena Alnajar is an IPilogue Senior Editor and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School .

A protects your intangible property from others’ use, but what happens when patent protection operates in a way that ensures no other innovators can build upon a patented invention? When IP and competition clashes, authorities will step in to regulate as demonstrated in a recent dawn raid.

On September 13, 2022 the Swiss Competition Commission (“COMCO”) the pharmaceutical company Novartis’ headquarters in Switzerland at . A rather unusual visit, COMCO proceeded to raid the company’s headquarters for all information related to an unidentified . According to the regulator, the drug’s patent could be a blocking patent used to prevent competing products’ entry into the market. Novartis is allegedly protecting its dermatology drug by using one patent to launch proceedings against possible competitors in the market. Here we see IP and competition law colliding with blocking patents wielded as an anti-competitive tool.

A blocking patent can prevent another inventor from using the patent’s technology or improving it. A blocking patent is often cited by during the patent application examination phase to block a patent application or a patent’s challenger (such as those claiming an existing patent should be invalid). On July 22, 2021, held in Chemours v. Daikin that “[a] blocking patent is one that is in place before the claimed invention because such a blocking patent may deter non-owners and non-licensees from investing the resources needed to make, develop, and market such a later, ‘blocked’ invention.” A blocking patent is therefore broad in scope to deter people from innovating in any way related to the blocking patent. Overall, these patents are a helpful business tool, blocking a competitor to conserve the patent’s commercial success while also observing where competitors are attempting to . But when too successful, the blocking patent has a on competition. Innovators’ fear of overtakes their willingness to build on the invention and the blocking patent becomes an anti-competitive red flag to regulators.

In the Novartis , authorities are questioning whether Novartis is acting appropriately with its drug patent. The investigation is still in its and in the company have slightly fallen after the raid was announced. Regulators unexpectedly taking a business’ commercially sensitive information is not ideal. The investigation thus raises a further question, when does a business’ patent portfolio become anti-competitive and subject to a raid?

Patent rights and anti-competitive practices can overlap. Patent holders should take action to ensure that their IP use does not violate their jurisdiction’s competition law. Balance must be maintained in the patent system through the : setting strict patent content boundaries, preventing exclusive licensing that stops other competitors from market entry, and preventing restrictive selling practices where patent rights are used to price fix. While blocking patents can close the doors to competitors, these patents can open the doors for someone else, like regulators, to come in and conduct their information raids.

The post The Swiss Competition Commission Are Coming! Novartis Dawn Raid shows clash between patent exclusivity and anti-competitive behaviours appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Alice Xie is an IPilogue Writer and a 1L JD Candidate at Western University’s Faculty of Law.

The intellectual property rights victory in Canada for the footwear company Crocs is a timely reminder to keep fleece clogs in mind for your winter wardrobe. Famous for its easily-recognizable design of breathable and water-friendly clogs, Crocs was founded in 2002 in the US by . Though it started out as comfortable boat shoes, Crocs now boasts . Crocs are popular in part because they walk the fine line between functionality and fashion. The clogs appeal to both the practical public with their comfortability, as well as those who see them as a fashion statement, including celebrities. With Crocs’ level of global popularity, knock-offs are inevitable.

The Battle Over Fleeced Clogs

As early as 2006, Crocs has been in numerous intellectual property battles against companies Crocs claims are selling knock-offs. While most of Crocs’ lawsuits are in the US, the battles have also crossed the border into Canada, such as Crocs’ October 21, 2022 victory in . Crocs Canada is a licensed distributor of the US company, and Double Diamond Distribution Ltd is a direct competitor for clog-style footwear operating under Dawgs and Canada Dawgs.

Released on October 21, 2022, this case decision concerned the validity of the industrial design rights for Crocs’ MAMMOTH line of fleece clogs (“939 Design”). rights protect the visual features of an article, including its design, shape, pattern or ornament, or any combination of these features. Crocs targeted the Fleece Dawgs footwear, claiming that they were unlawful imitations of the 939 Design. One of the issues the judge examined in this case was whether the design of Fleece Dawgs footwear differed substantially from the 939 Design under .�� Notably, the judge recognized the of the fleece clogs design that Crocs developed and commented that there was nothing like it previously in the market, which entitled the design to a broad scope of protection under industrial design rights. In finding that there was an , the judge determined that the two designs in question were not substantially different in their key features. The features mentioned included the overall shape, the fold over the fleece collar, the decorative discs, and the inner lining of the fleece clogs. In addition to a declaration that Dawgs has infringed the 939 Design, the judge also awarded Crocs around $700,000 from Dawgs’ profits and pre-judgment interest.

A Look at Crocs’ Other Battles

Beyond the industrial design victory in Canada, Crocs has other wins in its long battle to protect its intellectual property rights from copycats. ��The US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent and Trial and Appeal Board, after three rejections, held that the Class Crocs clog design patent was in 2019. In a mass intellectual property protection effort, Crocs in 2021 for trademark infringements. Among these lawsuits was one against a wholesaler for . Crocs has since settled claims with Walmart and a few other companies. Crocs against Daiso this past June 2022, a Japanese dollar store in California, for selling lined casual clogs that are virtually identical to Crocs’ clogs for $3 to $3.50. In its claim, Crocs argued that the design infringement has led Daiso to enjoy gains and profits in misleading consumers. As Crocs continues cracking down on copycats, ��the accumulation of legal victories like ��Crocs v Dawgs will strengthen the company’s argument for ownership over its registered designs, patents, and trademarks.

The post Crocs v Dawgs: The Battle of the Clogs appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Recently, a controversial trade deal between India and the United Kingdom (UK) was leaked. ��The leaked portion pertains to the trade of intellectual property between the two countries.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

In , India and the UK began negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA), aiming to double bilateral trade to $100 billion by 2030 via reduction or elimination of import-export tariffs between the two countries. Despite several setbacks, including but not limited to the high turnover of UK Prime Ministers, the deal seems to still be in the works.

The impugned IP portion of the proposal outlines demands by the UK to harmonize India’s patent and drug regulatory laws with those of the UK. These demands are what is mandated by ��international trade rules.. seem to be aimed at tightening regulations on producing, supplying, and exporting generic medications from India. Article E.10 of the IP chapter of the leaked proposal effectively prohibits pre-grant oppositions. This means that India would not be able to stop challenges to weak or invalid patents until after the granting of the patent. Article J.11 gives power to Customs officials to block generic drugs from leaving India for developing countries if a pharmaceutical corporation was to claim that their patent infringement by India-made generic drugs. Lastly, both Articles J.5 and J.7 seek to modify how courts adjudicate IP disputes, which are likely to “.”

Implications of a Reduction in Generic Drugs

Due to these proposed modifications, many are concerned about the global supply of generic medicines because India is a dominating force for generic drug manufacturing. A decrease in the supply of generic medicines could have devastating impacts on global health, especially countries where medicine has historically been less accessible due to high costs — generic drugs are than their brand-name counterparts, while having . In fact, many studies suggest that brand name medications are not superior to generic medications. ��With these potential impacts being so devastating, the medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières both the UK and India to remove these provisions from their FTA.

At the time of writing this article, FTA negotiations continue. Hopefully, criticism of these provisions will lead to their modification or, if still found to be more harmful than helpful, their removal.

The post Generic Drug Production to be Impacted by UK-India FTA?�� appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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

In , the Federal Court of Canada invalided patents for interactive program guide (“IPG”) technology and clarified a reasonable royalty as the appropriate remedy had the patents been found valid and infringed.

Rovi supplies , and Videotron is a telecommunications corporation providing cable services and . IPGs are interactive menus that you may have used to select/search programming listings rather than viewing them on a paper guide.

Rovi’s revenue model is to license a portfolio for a rate without consideration for the number of patents. Videotron did not renew its license which expired in 2016. Videotron claimed they licensed to avoid litigation, and later realized that Rovi’s portfolio is obsolete. Notably, Rovi wanted to double the royalty rate and when Videotron asked Rovi to “.” Rovi did not provide an adequate answer.

Rovi that Videotron infringed four patents, which Videotron were invalid. Rovi’s patents were held due to obviousness and anticipated knowledge in consideration of prior art and knowledge of the skilled person. Rovi’s patents were secured in the 1990s, one of which claims a “”. ��The Court held that it was obvious to the industry that IPGs would be prominent in the future and that 1990s were “.” Therefore, or obvious extensions.

The Court’s for denying the remedy of accounting of profits is significant, as not much caselaw has clarified this equitable remedy. Videotron’s products are classified as “complex products” since the patented technology is a small part of the overall value of the product —- not analogous to a pharmaceutical product. With standard patent cases, patentees can be granted ‘accounting for profits’ as a remedy. The availability of such a remedy is questionable with non-standard cases. The for awarding an ‘accounting for profits’ ��are as follows:

First, the Court did not find undue delay by Rovi in pursuing litigation against Videotron.

However, upon examining Rovi’s conduct, the Court found that Rovi operated in bad faith — that Rovi was using “” and not disclosing the list of infringed patents to Videotron to prevent them from designing around them. The recognition of “hard-ball” as a characteristic of bad faith conduct is a novel interpretation of a traditional equitable ground.

Second, the judge recognized Rovi’s “” into royalty deals and took note of Rovi’s delay in prosecuting patents which results in the problem of “holdup”. Granting an accounting remedy in this case would set an undesirable precedent contrary to the purposes of IPR as it gives patentees leverage in negotiations where the royalty would reflect the .

Third, Rovi that Videotron wilfully infringed their patents, however, the judge concluded that Videotron refusing to renew their agreement was actually based on a “reasonable assessment of the necessity of the patents”.

As the court considered the fourth factor neutral, it moved on to an interesting analysis of the complexity of calculating an accounting of profits — that inventors are entitled to that portion of which is causally attributable to the invention. However, patentees seeking an accounting remedy must provide a sound and reliable way to calculate profits. Here, the Courts found that Rovi’s proposal for calculating Videotron’s profits complex and unreliable, said to be based on “” evidence. The court noted caselaw describing that “.”

Instead, the Court accepted Videotron’s proposal of the appropriate remedy as a “.” It was a safer approach to argue a reasonable royalty cap of $150,000 per feature based on design-around rather than arguing that the royalty was zero, since the non-infringing alternative is to remove the IPGs all together.

The post Discretionary Remedies Clarified, and Videotron Ltd Successfully Defends Against Much Litigation-Experienced Rovi Guides Inc. appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Amin Hosseini is an IPilogue Writer and an LLM Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On , Sisvel International S.A. announced its Cellular IoT , consisting of 20 patent owners. By establishing this patent pool, the participating patent owners will create an offer to license all of their Patents required to implement the LTE-M and NB-IoT standards. Interestingly, Huawei Technologies and Nordic Semiconductor have also entered into a patent license agreement on , related to a portfolio of standard essential patents (SEPs) for LTE-M and NB-IoT owned by Huawei.

and are radio communication technology standards created by for Internet of Things (IoT) applications. The cellular LPWAN IoT standards LTE-M and NB-IoT evolved from the 4G LTE standard.

LTE-M is a subset of LTE technology designed specifically for machine-to-machine communication. LTE-M enables IoT devices to send and receive enormous volumes of data without depleting their batteries. It has a latency of about 10-15 milliseconds and can enable cell handovers. On the other hand, NB-IoT employs shorter frequency bands, allowing this technology to exploit the more effectively. For NB-IoT, latency is roughly 10 to 100 times lower, and coverage is far broader.

Cellular networks exist to facilitate connection between devices. To keep the device connected to the nearest towers, they often ping cellular devices around them to acquire location. The battery is depleted by these constant . Thus, most IoT devices require substantially long-lasting batteries, and they consume a significant amount of energy.

LTE-M and NB-IoT provide IoT applications with effective connectivity. Batteries in LTE-M devices can survive ten years or longer because of features called and . IoT devices can employ their power-saving mode with these standards, allowing them to sleep when not in use. Additionally, they can prolong their sleep, so they do not have to wake up to send the location update. Devices can employ extended discontinuous reception with LTE-M. When the device is not in PSM mode, it frequently checks for downlink data. With extended discontinuous reception, the frequency of radio check-ins is extended, which lowers power usage.

In addition to the technological effectiveness of these standards, Sisvel’s patent pool helps makers of IoT devices by providing a clear structure for getting licenses under the pool's portfolio of LTE-M and NB-IoT SEPs. Generally speaking, bilateral licensing would be costly between a vast and rising number of businesses and holders. By setting up this patent pool, it is expected that transaction costs will be decreased for IoT projects.

With this Cellular Patent Pool, licensees can finalize a single license for various licensor portfolios and prevent royalty reporting and payments for each licensor. And, with multiple licensees, a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory () license for such SEP portfolios is feasible. Moreover, by providing licenses with standardized, pre-established terms and conditions, we may lessen prejudice among licensees. Due to the fair total royalties provided by patent pools, the potential patent hold-up by individual licensors could not be a grave concern.

A large percentage of IoT projects do not produce the anticipated results, or simply put, they fail. Recently, in-depth research on IoT initiative failure has been published by . The research concludes that nearly three-quarters of IoT projects are not considered successful.

��However, this unsuccessful rate has nothing to do with the IoT concept. IoT businesses have to deal with many challenges and risks such as unanticipated costs including litigation, inaccessibility to required technologies, and failure to develop a properly-designed business model. This Patent pool, along with other measures, is a viable solution to such concerns. Sisvel’s cellular IoT patent pool is a giant leap for IoT businesses which is set to encourage competition, market involvement, and greater commercial and legal certainty in the IoT industry.

Further reading:

To read more about the transaction costs savings engendered by patent pools, please see Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Patent Pools, Available at

The post Sisvel’s Cellular IoT Patent Pool: Paving the Way for More Effective IoT Integration appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Controversy and uncertainty in the field of patent eligibility have resulted in decade-long fights over what can be patented and what cannot be, especially regarding diagnostic tests. There is currently a congressional push to let drug companies patent diagnostic tests in the United States. This push comes from Senator Thom Tills. On August 2, 2022, Senator Tills introduced Bill , titled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022, which, in part, aims to change currently existing US federal patent law regarding patent eligibility for different classes of inventions. ��

History of Patenting Diagnostic Methods

The bill was largely motivated by several Supreme Court rulings over the past decade, which have created exceptions to patent eligibility in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Traditionally, an inventor can gain patent protection for their invention if it is novel, non-obvious, and has utility. However, in 2012, the court in ruled that diagnostic tests that reflect naturally occurring biological phenomena cannot be patented because one cannot have a monopoly on a relationship based on natural principles. This ruling was then reaffirmed later in . This exception in the eligibility of diagnostic tests led to widespread confusion regarding patent eligibility. In particular, the chief judge of the US’s top patent court, Kimberly A. Moore, saying that Federal Circuit judges are now unsure of how to apply the patent eligibility provision. Additionally, these exceptions have led to patents being rejected in the United States but approved in other jurisdictions with similar patent laws, such as Europe, thus discouraging biotech companies from investing in diagnostic methods. In response, Bill S.4734 is being presented to address this confusion and increase innovation in the United States via more specific patent eligibility standards that are likely to expand the ability to patent modified genes and pharmaceutical processes, including diagnostic methods.

The Debate over S. 4734

This proposed bill has drawn much debate. On the one hand, , such as the American Civil Liberties Union, have expressed concern that this bill will allow pharmaceutical companies to take advantage of this expanded patent eligibility by creating monopolies over essential diagnostic methods resulting in decreased access to these methods and overall harm to the health of Americans. However, , such as the Council of Innovation Promotion, argue that the bill will increase investment into diagnostic research, which decreased significantly after the Mayo decision. These groups point to the pharmaceutical industry’s response to COVID-19, arguing that patents were the basis for creating the vaccines.

If the bill can clarify patent eligibility in the US, it may be worth pursuing further. However, I also question the idea that patent eligibility is the driving force behind biotech innovation.�� The Invention-Induced Theory, argued by proponents for S.4734, posits that patents are an incentive for inventors and that absent patents, there will be no inventions. However, this theory fails to account for inventions induced by the market, scientific curiosity, accident, or ego. Additionally, have shown that patents are not a significant driver of most innovations. Thus, there may be a better way to both reward biotech companies for their creation of diagnostic methods and prevent harmful monopolies over essential lifesaving inventions.

Regardless of which side of this debate you fall on, it is still being determined if S. 4734 will be further explored. When this bill was introduced in August 2022, the Tillis planned to hold hearings focused on this legislation if the Republicans took the senate in the November midterm elections. However, with the , the future of this matter remains uncertain.

The post United States Bill S. 4734: Should Diagnostic Tests be Eligible for Patent Protection appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Pankhuri Malik is an Osgoode LLM Graduate, IPilogue Writer and IP Innovation Clinic Fellow.

In a landmark , Novartis has signed a Voluntary Licensing Agreement with the for its nilotinib drug, used in treating Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) in adults and children as young as a year old. Nilotinib is the first cancer treatment drug and the first drug for the treatment of to be voluntarily licensed in a public health initiative.

The MPP is a public health organisation funded by and backed by the United Nations. The MPP ��aims to facilitate access to life-saving medicine in low- and middle-income countries. So far, the MPP has signed agreements with 18 patent holders, MSD and Pfizer, for treatments for tuberculosis, COVID-19, Hepatitis C and HIV.

Nilotinib is a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor offered to patients resistant or intolerant to imatinib. It is administered as an oral medication twice a day. The World Health Organization first added it to its list of Essential Medicines in 2017.

The coincided with the World Cancer Congress’s announcement that nilotinib is now free for development, manufacture and supply in seven countries including Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines and Tunisia, subject to local regulatory approvals. MPP’s Executive Director Charles Gore acknowledged that while the remaining term for nilotinib's patent is not significant, with the patent expiring in the US on July 4, 2023, this move is a precedent for MPP’s expansion into drugs for non-communicable diseases. In terms of revenue, nilotinib accounted for for Novartis last year.

This move comes in the wake of Novartis and MPP joining the Access to Oncology Medicines Coalition (ATOM) in May 2022. ATOM is a global initiative led by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) to improve access to cancer treatment in low- and middle-income countries. The World Trade Organisations’ Agreement on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights already provides waiver from patent obligations to the least developed countries. Further, the phase-out period for the waiver has been till January of 2034. Patent protection is only one of many factors that hamper this access.

Since the remaining term of the patent is less than a year, the footprint of this license probably will not be significant. Though, with around Big Pharma’s chokehold on the healthcare industry increasing, this may prove to be a bargaining chip for further discussion on licensing of life-saving medicine in low- and middle-income countries.

The post Novartis signs Voluntary License Agreement with the Medicine Patent Pool for Nilotinib 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.