Photo by (

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

Ìę

As applications for 2L summer student and articling positions approach, law students typically receive the opportunity to visit firms and talk to partners, associates, and students in person. This allows them to get a better idea of where they want to apply and how to best tailor their applications to specific firms. When the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this practice, law firms adapted to hosting virtual open houses on Zoom, Webex, or similar platforms. Virtual open houses offer students a sense of a firm’s workplace culture and values without physically walking through their doors. On July 21, I attended a virtual open house hosted by (B&P) and got an idea of life at a leading Canadian IP law firm.

B&P’s open house consisted of a panel discussion followed by a networking session where panelists were paired with small groups of students. Panelists included Trademarks Partner , Engineering & Technology Partners and Life Sciences Counsel , and Director of Recruitment & Professional Development . The panelists discussed their practice areas and the kinds of experiences that summer and articling students may expect.

Prospective 1L, 2L, and 3L students from across Canada, and even across the pond, attended this event. Although some virtual open houses are webinars where students remain anonymous, B&P encouraged students to keep their cameras on if they felt comfortable. As an attendee, I appreciated both the cameras-on suggestion and the breakout room networking session because they created a sense of connection that is difficult to foster in virtual meetings. Throughout the pandemic, B&P cultivated a positive virtual culture with team-building activities in the form of virtual events like yoga classes and trivia nights.

What is Life Like at Bereskin & Parr?

The panelists discussed many values underlying the firm’s culture, from collaboration to wellness and mental health awareness, to diversity and inclusion. Their emphasis on learning stuck out most to me. Multiple panelists highlighted the importance of a willingness to learn—it was cited as the one quality that would make a new hire successful and, according to Horbal, as the most enjoyable part of working at the firm. In my breakout room, he explained that as a student he had to pay to learn about interesting topics, but now he does so constantly in his role at B&P. Working on innovative and unique projects has enabled him to develop new skills and build knowledge about emerging fields, such as artificial intelligence and cannabis.

Although IP work requires new skills and knowledge, students at B&P are not without guidance. In their summer program, each student is paired with a junior associate who serves as a mentor. Sine they were recently students, junior associates can empathize and guide new hires through their work and their transition to working at a law firm. In addition to weekly meetings, mentors typically introduce students to other associates and partners to help them build connections and learn about various practice areas. Although this practice became more difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic, it did not lapse. Instead, mentors made virtual introductions. Articling students are also paired with someone more senior who can assist them with workload allocation.

If B&P’s culture and expertise in IP interests you and you would like to apply, here are my main takeaways from the webinar:

• First, be prepared to talk about anything you put on your resume. Do not list an experience or publication that you could not discuss in an interview setting.
• Second, tailor your cover letter to B&P and explain your interest in working at a boutique IP firm. Even if your interest in IP is not reflected through your formal work experience, tell your story and connect your experiences with your interests and goals.
• Lastly, do not undersell yourself or count yourself out. A background in STEM is not required to work at B&P, so long as you are willing to learn new things. B&P has a variety of roles across their various practice groups including Copyright & Digital Media; Litigation; Patents; Regulatory, Advertising & Marketing; and Trademarks. There are roles for individuals with no technical background which may differ from what students initially envision, so building the requisite skills and knowledge may require some extra work.

The post An Idea of Life at Bereskin & Parr LLP appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Osgoode Hall Law School Intellectual Property (IP) Law and Technology Program is changing the landscape of IP law and policy discussions in Canada by providing an independent and authoritative voice on issues, and broadening and enhancing relevant public policy debates and practices in Canada.Ìę

Assistant Director, IP Osgoode:

In this two-year, renewable contract position, you will be responsible for the administration and management of the overall IP Law and Technology Program. You will oversee the daily operation of the Program, including outreach activities (such as conferences and events), and manage a dynamic website, blog and image for the Program. You are an energetic, creative administrator with an LL.B. (or equivalent degree), professional business credentials, and strong communication and technical skills. A graduate degree in IP and the ability to speak French and other languages would be beneficial.

We offer comprehensive benefits and access to superb educational and recreational facilities.

Ìę(Application deadline is March 12, 2010).

The post IP Osgoode seeking Assistant Director appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On 6 November 2009, IP Osgoode and the Institute for Feminist Legal Studies jointly organized the second annual . Gowlings Lafleur Henderson LLP hosted the event at their downtown Toronto office. Speakers were organized into three panels: Private Practice, Industry and Government, and Gender Issues in Intellectual Property. The event featured presentations by scholars researching gender and intellectual property issues. Speakers were also invited from various areas of IP practice to reflect on the opportunities and challenges in the field and in the practice of law and policy-making. The focus of the discussions was whether women in IP faced greater barriers than women in the practice of law generally. You can find coverage of the first annual women and IP roundtable by Anna Shahid by clicking .

The event was co-chaired by Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino and Professor Mary Jane Mossman (both of Osgoode Hall Law School). ÌęThis year the roundtable presenters consisted of, Professor Fiona Kay (Sociology Department, Queen’s University), Ariadni Athanassiadis (MBM LLP), Heather Lawrence (Member of Chambers of Michael Silverleaf QC), Virginia Jones (Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association), Barbara Motzney (Department of Canadian Heritage), Professor Carys Craig (Osgoode Hall Law School), Professor Bita Amani (Faculty of Law, Queen’s University), Professor Laura Murray (English Department, Queen’s University), and Professor David Vaver (Osgoode Hall Law School).

Keynote

Fiona Kay, a sociology professor at Queen’s University, delivered the keynote address. Widely recognized for publishing extensively on issues surrounding gender and the legal profession, she notes that although trends suggest that gender imbalance is becoming less apparent, it would be wrong to say that the issue has been remedied entirely. She offers some sobering statistics on females in the legal profession citing the proverbial glass-ceiling. While female law students constitute close to if not more than 50% of law school enrolment numbers, women are more likely to be found in less money-making and less prestigious legal settings than men. Several perspectives exist to explain these numbers and are broadly classified into resource (supply-side) factors and demand-side factors. The supply factors include the persistent gender stereotypes held by employers; that women possess less ‘cognitive traits.’ Consequently women are often not granted the same presumption of competence. Also, because women often bear family and household responsibilities, they are unable to put in the long hours that men can and are often relegated to the ‘mommy-track’. The demand-side factors are commonly explained by cultural reasons: networking and client contact is a more important consideration for hiring, retaining and promoting male candidates (conversely, academic performance is a more important variable for female candidates).

She also cited that 9% of women would leave private practice within 16 months and 55% would leave within 4.5 years. “Flight from law” is a notable issue and she states that while alternative work schedules exist, these arrangements are far from being institutional policy. Flexibility is advocated by the various Bar Associations but it is still largely up to the individual to seek alternative arrangements from employers. Professor Kay did offer some encouraging findings however. She states that women are more often satisfied with the practice of law itself than their male counterparts and that while barriers persist, so do growing enhancements of gender equality in the profession.

Panel One

In the first panel, two practitioners in private practice shared their personal experiences working in intellectual property. Their experiences in some measure mirror the findings of the keynote speaker. A partner at MBM LLP in Ottawa, Ariadni Athanassiadis cites that once women hit forty they disappear from the practice of law. However, she emphasizes the strength of having female and male colleagues on her team and how client-interactions can be enhanced by having both genders represented. She also takes note of her firm’s clear articulation that women are an asset and further states that lawyers who are working mothers are among the most efficient she knows, and are appreciated as such.

Heather Lawrence, a barrister with the Chambers of Michael Silverleaf QC in London England, brought a unique perspective on gender imbalance in the context of a predominantly male judiciary. She cites that it is not uncommon for female counsel to be treated with hostility. She suggests that gender imbalance in the intellectual property world is not likely to be any more pervasive than the legal world generally, and lists three broad factors relating to how people choose an IP lawyer: 1. Someone you think will do a good job, 2. Someone you think the client will be impressed by, and 3. Someone you will enjoy working with. As these criterions are value judgements, there is the potential for bias and gender issues. She recalls that witnesses are often relieved to see her step up to the bench on cross-examinations because of her gender and she supposes that the perception of lawyers and clients likely mirror that of witnesses. Heather Lawrence remains optimistic however and believes that cultural and attitude changes are key. She further believes that the Bar is best positioned to initiate these changes.

Panel Two

Both speakers in the next panel, with successful careers in the industry and government, were impressed that there was a strong female presence in all the legal counsel positions they had interactions with. Virginia Jones, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs at the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association, stated that it is unsettling if she does not see her female peers – she also recognizes that when external legal counsel is sought, it should be the responsibility of women working in-house to seek a gender-balanced team. She also questions the requirement for some IP practitioners to have a scientific background, suggesting that having an advanced degree may instead impede one’s ability to translate complex science into simpler, more digestible material for a deciding judge to understand in court.

Barbara Motzney, Director General with the Department of Canadian Heritage, emphasizes that working in IP and policy requires a multidisciplinary team. She also states that the government’s commitment to gender issues is defined in the Charter and directed further by various Federal Action Plans and international agreements. Barbara Motzney also emphasises the importance of communication. As a non-lawyer working with lawyers, she notes how important it is to deliver plain, easy-to-understand and quickly communicable documents.

Panel Three

The final panel discussed academic gender issues in intellectual property.Ìę One slide in particular elaborates on the double glass-ceiling:

If science is culture- that culture is male,

Where law is artefact, it too is of a primarily male dominated culture,

Women are demoted in the story of creation.

Law Professor at Queen’s University, Bita Amani detailed her work on traditional knowledge and how IP has an alienating affect on the kinds of content it attaches exclusivity to. More specifically she states that because non-narrative knowledge such as folklore or traditional knowledge is treated as public domain, it is held to be not deserving of protection. She also discusses the role of universities and challenges how academics focus on black letter law sometimes to the detriment of exploring “fringe” topics and engaging students in a critical manner. She elaborates that cultural studies help us analyse IP in a multidisciplinary way; rather than solely relying on economic rationales such as the utilitarian view that patents encourage disclosure and defeat the free-rider effect.

English Professor at Queen’s University, Laura Murray, discussed her recent experience with the Facebook Page called , where she discovered that women are underrepresented in the dialogue on copyright reform in Canada. She discovered that although 34% of IP academics in Canada are women, only 11 % of the discussion posts were from women. During her presentation, she highlighted the masculine and generational tones to copyright movements today: whether it is on the Facebook discussion websites or the well-publicized documentary on copyright and remix culture “”. Further, Laura Murray asks us to consider how laws are experienced by artists, patrons and the public and how that is distinctly different from the conversation that legal minds engage in.

In Conclusion

Osgoode Professor David Vaver made some closing remarks, recounting a recent story of how a woman’s application for professorship was not considered because she couldn’t attend the interview due to her being in an advanced state of pregnancy. The university denied her an alternative interview via conference call. She eventually launched a Human Rights Complaint. ÌęProfessor Mary Jane Mossman finished the event by stressing that while some things have changed, not everything has changed at the same pace - in particular, sex segregation in the legal profession and IP. A point emphasized during the event is that only 18% of partners in general practice are women whereas 45% of associates are women. It is suggested that the gender issue in IP is further exacerbated, due in large part to the requirement of having a science or engineering background (largely male-dominated academic fields) to practice in fields such as patents.Ìę Professor Mossman believes that getting a group of like-minded people together to engage in dialogue and helping them realize that they are not alone can be used to stimulate change.

While many statistics suggest that we are only at the very beginning of addressing these challenges, strides are being made and we feel that events such as the roundtable is evidence of that progress! Reflecting on the day’s events, a few themes were highlighted. First is the idea of communication and the need to address the disconnect between how scientists, lawyers, policy-makers and laypersons understand and interpret IP issues and the law. The second is the role of universities in shaping how legal minds understand IP. It was suggested by one of the panelists that the models and perspectives endorsed in law schools are perpetuated in legal practice and beyond. Third is the importance of a forum for debate to ensure knowledge is shared and multidisciplinary perspectives are expressed. A caveat to this last point: Laura Murray stressed in her presentation that the tone of the debate is a critical concern. For example, a generational tone can be a strength but it can also be a limitation where the dialogue takes on a sexist, ageist or culturally-biased quality and in effect excludes some groups from participating.

The post Women and IP: Finding the Elusive Balance in Intellectual Property appeared first on IPOsgoode.