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

In keeping with our reports on the Unified Patent Court, it was announced on October 19, 2022, that the Administrative Committee of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) of 85 judges to the UPC. Further, in accordance with its statute, the Administrative Committee, also shared the composition of UPC’s Presidium.

Essentially, judges have been appointed to UPC’s Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal. Of the 85 Judges, 34 are legally qualified judges and 51 are judges with technical expertise in , including Biotechnology, Chemistry and Pharmaceuticals, Mechanical Engineering and Physics.

for a judgeship, the applicants were required to have experience in patent litigation, be a national of a contracting member state to the UPC, and have command over any one of the official languages of the European Patent Office.

The Court of Appeal will be presided over by Judge Klaus Grabinski, a German Federal Court Judge, and Paris Court of Appeal Judge Florence Butin who will be taking on the role of the President of the Court of First Instance. The Presidium is with five more judges from Netherlands, Sweden, France and Germany. Of these judges, three have been appointed to the Court of First Instance and the remaining two will preside over the Court of Appeal.

With the UPC consolidating patent proceedings for the entirety of the European Union, it is expected to host a multitude of legal proceedings. Since all the judges are working on a part time basis, it remains to be seen if the Court will be able to keep pace with the legal actions it is expected to adjudicate on. , at the local or regional division level, unless the parties agree otherwise, a bench of three legally qualified judges will hear each case. ��Technically qualified judges will only be included on the bench if a party or the panel requests it, or in cases involving a revocation or invalidity-based counterclaim. , a case in the Court of First Instance will be heard by a bench of three judges, two of which are legally qualified and one who is technically qualified.

The sunrise period of the UPC is expected to run from January 2023 to March 2023, giving patent holders the opportunity to opt-out of the jurisdiction of the UPC.

Evidently, the selected judges are from a wide range of legal, national and technical backgrounds. Many IP enthusiasts had previously raised concerns over the UPC’s composition, that the global pro-patent bias may trickle into the UPC’s decision making as well. While it is unclear as to whether the composition of judges balances both innovators’ and the public’s interests, the diverse backgrounds of the judges seem to reflect an effort towards attaining this equilibrium.

The post Unified Patent Court’s Judicial Appointments Announced appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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

The proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) would introduce greater regulation of the use and development of artificial intelligence (AI) in Canada’s private sector. On June 15^th, 2022, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, François-Phillippe Champagne introduced Bill C-27, or the . Bill C-27 reiterates much of , tabled in 2020, reintroducing a modified Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA) and Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act (PIDPTA). However, Bill C-27 also introduced newly proposed legislation like AIDA which, if enacted, would make long advocated-for changes to Canada’s AI regulatory landscape.

AIDA would create new assessment and risk-mitigation tools for the use and transparency of high-impact AI systems. It would establish persons responsible for monitoring AI systems, such as the Artificial Intelligence and Data Commissioner — their role is to assist the Minister in the administration and enforcement of AIDA. Monetary penalties for the AIDA contraventions are also set out to enforce trust and deter the reckless and fraudulent uses of AI. In this way, Bill C-27 and AIDA would direct Canada towards harmonization with international regulatory frameworks, like that of the .

With that being said, AIDA would be more limited in scope when compared to its EU counterpart. For example, unlike EU legislation, AIDA would not apply to both public and private sectors, and all federal government institutions would be exempt.^[1] Further, EU legislation sets out specific prohibited AI practices, alongside criteria for determining the degree of risk presented by any AI system. AIDA establishes no specific prohibited AI practices and distinguishes only between high-risk AI and all other systems; complex and salient matters are left to incoming regulation.

Beyond its limited scope, AIDA may be uncertain in its delineation of provincial and federal responsibilities. For example, AIDA’s consideration of “regulated activity,” would capture many elements of AI development and use, including “designing, developing or making available for use an artificial intelligence system or managing its operations.”^[2] This language indicates the legislation is pursuant to Parliament's trade and commerce power under section of the Constitution Act, 1867. However, the federal government may also intend provinces to legislate on intraprovincial uses of AI, notwithstanding the rarity of circumstances under which such AI systems would be developed.

Lastly, attention is required of the breadth of persons AIDA considers “responsible” for an AI system in the course of trade.^[3] It holds designers, developers and managers of AI systems subject to AIDA’s administrative and operational requirements. If those parties are expected to monitor or conduct audits of consumer deployment of AI systems, assessments must be made of risk potentials and mitigation from both perspectives. Additional regulation may be required in the full consideration of such perspectives.����

AIDA remains proposed legislation and may be modified prior to implementation. However, it represents a much larger move by international legal bodies to regulate the development and use of AI. Businesses must be prepared for greater AI regulation in Canada. Thankfully, informative and responsive policy for the consideration of AI systems is also being developed, such as a by the Law Commission of Ontario. If correctly applied, AIDA should empower more Canadians to engage with trustworthy and transparent AI systems.

^[1] This may be extended to exclude provincial departments or agencies by regulation as set out in s.3 of AIDA.

^[2] See s.5(1) of AIDA.

^[3] Ibid at s.5(2).

The post Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) signals more AI regulation to come appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On April 23, 2022, the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional political����on the Digital Services Act (DSA). Based on the principle that what is illegal offline should be illegal online, the DSA imposes digital regulations with the goal of stopping the spread of illegal content and ensuring the protection of users’ rights.

The rules set out in the DSA primarily apply to online intermediaries and platforms providing services in the European Union (EU), including online marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, and app stores. The legislation will impose obligations on regulated entities that are proportionate to the nature of their services and size of their user-base. For example, very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs) with more than 45 million active monthly users will have more stringent responsibilities than micro and small enterprises.

The DSA is set to impose a series of new requirements that will have a significant impact on online business:

1. Online Marketplaces: The DSA will impose a duty of care on online marketplaces in relation to the sellers who list items or services for sale on the platforms. These marketplaces will also have to collect and display certain information in association with listings to better inform consumers.
2. Risk Management: VLOPs and VLOSEs will be obligated to carry out an annual risk reduction analysis aimed at reducing risks associated with (i) the dissemination of illegal content; (ii) adverse effect on fundamental rights; (iii) the manipulation of services that affect democratic processes or public security; and (iv) adverse effects on gender-based violence, minors, and users’ health.
3. Dark Patterns: The DSA will prohibit the use of confusing or deceptive user interfaces and practices that are aimed at misleading users.
4. Recommendation Systems: To improve transparency, the DSA will mandate that VLOPs and VLOSEs offer systems for recommending content to users that is not based on their profiling.��
5. Crisis Response Mechanism: Influenced by the conflict in Ukraine, the DSA allows the European Commission to analyze the impact of VLOPs and VLOSEs on a crisis that is affecting public health or security. Based on this analysis, the European Commission may put in place select measures for the respect of fundamental rights.
6. Minors: Platforms will have to implement protection measures to ensure the online safety of minors, including prohibitions against targeted advertisements based on minors’ personal data.

The provisional agreement is subject to approval by the European Council and Parliament. Once adopted, the DSA will apply 15 months or from January 1, 2024, whichever is later, after entry into force. For the VLOPs and VLOSEs, the DSA will apply four months after their designation.

The post European Parliament and Council Reach Digital Regulation First with Provisional Agreement on The Digital Services Act appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Chris Brignola ()

Pankhuri Malik is an IPilogue Writer and an LLM Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

The IPilogue reported in September 2021 that with , the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) may become a reality by 2022. Now, on January 19, 2022, became the 13^th Member State to ratify the Agreement, clarifying the timeline for the UPC. Austria’s ratification triggered the protocol’s and kicked off the Provisional Application Period (“PAP”).

The PAP is expected to last anywhere between eight and twelve months, subject to the time required to finish the preparatory arrangements for the UPC to commence operations. While Germany has enabling legislation for the UPC, its ratification is yet to be officially communicated. It is expected that once the Member States are with the preparations for the UPC, Germany will deposit its instrument of ratification.

, the EU patent regime requires the patentee to have its patent (granted by the European Patent Office) validated in the Member States individually. Thereafter, any claim of infringement and/or invalidity is required to be prosecuted through separate legal proceedings in all nation states. The UPC, through its agreement to set a single and specialized patent regime, with its accompanying regulations, consolidates the national patents into a streamlined process. Under the UPC, innovators will be able to enforce their patents in a single court. Similarly, invalidation proceedings will also be adjudicated upon in the UPC, removing the need for parties to prosecute their patent rights individually in all member countries. Further, the cost of renewal of one UPC patent is expected to be equivalent to roughly the sum of national renewals in the top four EU countries.

At the moment, the UPC has 25 signatories and 16 Member States, including Austria, have ratified it. Once Germany’s ratification document is received, the UPC will commence from the after receipt of the document. This could happen as early as September 2022. The UPC is expected to commence operations in .

At the moment, since the practicalities of the UPC are still unknown, it is understandable that innovators may be apprehensive to avail the jurisdiction of the UPC immediately. The Agreement therefore provides for an “opt-out” period. In other words, innovators may be able to avail one of the :

1. Proceed under the jurisdiction of the UPC;
2. Opt out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and continue to avail patent rights under the regime in place; or
3. Opt for a hybrid system, where an existing European patent may be validated under the UPC and separately through national validation in non-Member States.

As of now, this transition period is only valid for seven years, and is further extendable by another seven, after review at the five-year mark.

The work to prepare for the commencement of operations of the UPC is being conducted by the (“Committee”). The Committee is comprised of all Member States to the Agreement, and its accompanying regulations. At the outset, the Committee is undertaking work under 5 broad heads:

1. The legal framework;
2. Financials;
3. Information technology;
4. Infrastructure; and
5. Human Resources.

However, the Committee is a short-lived endeavour and will only survive for as long as preparatory works are still underway.

Under Article 24 of the Agreement, the UPC will on Union Law, the UPC Agreement signed by the Member States, the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, and other international agreements applicable to patents and binding on the Member States. Alongside, the UPC will also take national law into consideration.�� Under the hybrid system mentioned above, any existing patent rights that may be validated under the UPC will continue to be governed by national laws.

Now that the UPC has become a reality, almost a decade after it was first conceptualized, it is expected that the European patent landscape will drastically change. For one, the holistic costs of securing patent protection in the EU are projected to drop by almost %. Similarly, the timeline for securing a patent and litigating its infringement and validity is also expected to significantly drop. All in all, with the removal of administrative barriers to securing patent protection, we should expect to see a substantive increase in patent applications in the EU.

The post One World, One Patent: The Unified Patent Court Becomes a Reality! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by on

Meena Alnajar is an��IPilogue��Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow,��and a 2L JD Candidate at��Osgoode��Hall Law School

��

Updated 30 September 2021

Patents can help inventors gain protection and recognition for their innovations, but patent litigation can often subject patentees to high costs and lengthy court proceedings. Europe may be on the cusp of a more efficient adjudication process with its proposed Unified Patent Court (UPC). , the UPC is an agreement among 24 countries to create a single expert patent court to undertake patent adjudication with binding effect across all contracting European states. Currently, all European Union (EU) countries , and Croatia have signed on. This means that the UPC could enforce rulings affecting over 300 million people. that the UPC is a dream, due to several delays in its initiation. Yet Germany’s of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) announced on August 18, 2021 may bring the UPC into reality.

Germany is one of the , alongside France and Italy. The UK was previously in the top three, but since . In fact, the , as the country is such a key player in the European patent arena. With Germany’s recent ratification, the UPC hopes to initiate its operations . Will a Unified Patent Court increase accessibility to the patent process or create new roadblocks?

If the UPC rules on a patent infringement matter, this ruling would be binding across 24 EU states. In theory, this increased patent protection should benefit patentees. But at the same time, it may also leave patentees open to facing patent invalidity suits within the UPC, which would invalidate the patent across all member states. To this end, the , where patentees can opt-out of the UPC’s jurisdiction, thereby preventing invalidity challenges within the UPC but also leaving the patentee in the position of having to litigate infringement on a country-to-country basis.

Another potential benefit of the UPC is more expedient legal proceedings. The UPC can , minimizing duplicate actions across countries and preventing the risk of contradictory judgements. Further, one court should amount to one cost. The UPC may help reduce patent litigation costs by centralizing litigation. With reduced costs and time, perhaps the UPC is the ideal model for adjudicating patent protection matters for the future.

Many steps are still many steps involved before the UPC’s grand opening in mid-2022. Some member states must sign on to ratify the UPC and there are protocols that . But if the UPC does become a reality next year, having a court with a binding effect on 24 countries can help patentees settle international patent disputes in one court. The UPC’s continentally binding effect could provide patent rulings that are faster and cheaper for European patent holders.

The post One World, One Patent: Germany’s Recent Ratification May Make the Unified Patent Court a Reality by 2022 appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by )

Tugce Kucukali is an IPilogue Writer and incoming LL.M. Candidate at University of British Columbia.

��

The European Union (EU) Court of Justice Advocate General, Saugmandsgaard ØE, the long-awaited opinion on the action brought by the Republic of Poland against the contentious Article 17 of . The opinion examines the background of the Directive, the contested provisions, their interference with the right to freedom of expression, and the compatibility of this limitation with

The Advocate General explains the ratio legis of the Directive by referencing the value gap between the value that an online content-sharing service provider acquires from the copyrighted subjects and the value that it distributes to the rights-holders. The amount distributed is quite insignificant compared to the amount earned. The Directive also addresses questions such as whether the providers should themselves acquire rights on a work by licensing and remuneration and whether they could benefit from copyright exemptions, such as caricature, parody, and pastiche. The Directive attempts to achieve an equal footing on which providers and rights-holders could negotiate and eliminate this gap.

Under the Directive, the strict liability of the content-sharing service providers, who communicate the copyrighted works to the public, would require them to change their business model. As per Article 17, the providers shall not solely perform the “notice and takedown” procedure but “notice and stay down,” making the best efforts to prevent future uploads. This provision imposes an obligation of diligence to the providers since removed content is often re-uploaded. Rather than removal of such content ex post, ex ante prevention is set forth.

By this obligation, the providers employ diverse software tools such as hashing, watermarking, or fingerprinting. The Directive does not require the providers to adopt specific measures. Rather than a direct obligation, their use is indirectly imposed as an exemption from liability. The Advocate General emphasizes that this obligation is stipulated for operators that manage a significant, or even huge, volume of content. In each case, the measure is determined by considering the type, audience and size of the service, type of works, availability of suitable and effective means, and proportionate cost.��

The Advocate General agrees that the provision interferes with freedom of expression since users are not completely free to upload any content. However, the content is monitored not to suppress freedom of expression, but to prevent copyright infringement. Even though the providers are currently able to filter and block any content according to their self-regulations, this does not constitute interference by a public authority, as is the case of Article 17.

Regarding the compatibility of this limitation with the Charter, the Advocate General investigated whether the limitation is prescribed by law, respects freedom of expression, and adheres to the principle of proportionality. Since the Advocate General regards this monitoring obligation as a specific and not a general obligation, prohibited by Article 15 of , the limitation does not infringe the “essence of the right”, its untouchable core which must remain free from interference. According to the Advocate General, the EU legislature’s safeguards minimize the freedom of expression risks. This respects the proportionality requirement while considering the value gap created, the difficulties of the notice and takedown system for right holders, and the fact that the obligation concerns a specific group of providers. Even though the Advocate General’s opinion was expected to sway in this direction, the instructions made towards the member states are crucial for the transposition of the Directive into their national laws, eventually leading to the smooth application of the Directive across the EU.

The post Advocate General’s Considerations on Article 17 appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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

��

It is now an unfortunate truism that we are all subjects of perpetual surveillance. The legal infrastructure that sustains and enables this Orwellian dystopia is undoubtedly overwhelming and discouraging for those seeking change. But victories are also possible; the two Schrems cases, discussed below, are an example. Yet, these cases also point to the need for a more or less uniform legal order for data governance.

Schrems I

In 2015, Austrian law student and privacy activist, Maximillian Schrems, sued Facebook Ireland for what he alleged to be an . Schrems’ claimed that the U.S. mass-surveillance program renders it unable to provide an of personal data (PD). The EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) imposes this requirement on countries outside of the EU. While Canada passed the in order to meet this requirement, the U.S. negotiated the with the EU; a self-certification scheme that allows U.S. organizations receiving information from the EU to attest that they adhere to EU data and human rights laws.

Schrems challenged the Safe Harbour Agreement, which passed the muster of the European Commission (EC) in . The EC is the executive branch of the EU that, among other things, . However, following Edward Snowden’s , there could be no doubt as to the “generalized basis” by which the US government collects and stores citizens’ data, which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Europe’s highest court, found to “.” This decision, which came to be known as Schrems I, ultimately invalidated the Safe Harbour Agreement.

Schrems II

While the initial decision was a victory for Schrems, it later turned out that Facebook was not relying on the Safe Harbour Agreement, but on the ). These clauses, also passed by the EC, .” Compelled to revise his challenge in 2015, Schrems alleged that contractual arrangements in the U.S. legal regime cannot adequately protect PD because, among other things, U.S. law to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to . In the meantime, following the invalidation of the Safe Harbour Agreement, the U.S. and the EU negotiated another self-certification scheme for U.S. companies called the Privacy Shield Agreement, which the EC in 2016.

In the , released in July 2020, the CJEU once again invalidated a EC adequacy decision, this time invalidating the Privacy Shield Agreement because it does not contemplate sufficient avenues for individuals to bring an action against the government for unlawful surveillance. The CJEU ultimately agreed with Schrems that the U.S. legal system, , does not provide “essentially equivalent” protection of data as EU law. Thus, while the CJEU in Schrems II held that SCCs may provide “effective mechanisms” for the protection of transferred PD pursuant to EU law, including the passed in 2018, it also emphasized that SCCs do not bind public authorities of data-receiving countries. In other words, the U.S. government is not a party to SCC contracts between data importers and individuals, leaving its vast surveillance apparatus unrestrained.

Implications of Schrems

Schrems II confirms the CJEU’s stance against mass-surveillance. But while a victory for privacy, the decision also creates a web of uncertainty; for now, s.” This impossibility has raised concerns in the health industry, of which

It is too soon to evaluate the implications of the Schrems II decision, given that the EC just released on June 4, 2021. provisions into standardized contracts for the international transfer of data. With the invalidation of both the Safe Harbour Agreement and the Privacy Shield Agreement, we are left with the discrepancy between rigorous data protection laws in one jurisdiction (i.e., the EU), and a lax legal order with respect to surveillance in the other: an incoordination that significantly withholds the benefits associated with international data flow.

The post The Current State of Cross-Border Data-Transfers appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo Credits: (

Tugce Kucukali is an IPilogue Writer and incoming LL.M. Candidate at University of British Columbia.

��

On 19 April 2019, and adopted . June 7, 2021 was the deadline for the member states to enact their national laws in accordance with the Directive. On June 7th, through efforts by some member states, in particular Poland, an annulment action was commenced claiming that Article 17(4) of the Directive violated freedom of expression (). The Directive was also not received positively by the European Union.

According to EU law, “directives” provide more flexibility to the member states than “regulations” because member states base their own national laws on directives. The European Parliament and Council’s decision to adopt directives on copyright law, as opposed to regulations, is consistent with the dynamic character of copyright law. Although the legal text provides legislative freedom to the member states, the Directive has been heavily criticized.

Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive, introduce text and data mining as a new copyright law exception. Article 15 sets forth the rights of the press , and Articles 18-22 regulate the rights of content creators.

The Highly-Debated Article 17

Article 17 places more burdens on online content sharing service providers than the current EU copyright law does. The E-Commerce Directive is at the core of current debates. Although the given definitions restrict the Directive’s scope, its proposed content monitoring obligations are stricter than those currently in place.

Service providers should put their “best efforts” to not only license the content shared on their websites, but also prevent the reuploading of content banned by notice and takedown procedures. Even though national laws require due diligence obligations of diverse scopes, each nation’s laws and practice will ascertain the meaning of the “best efforts”.

Article 17’s copyright exceptions are also problematic. CJEU case law has designated criteria for several exceptions; however, the criteria have no clear and decided definitions. Indeed, the CJEU needs time to set forth requirements. Member States may interpret the Directive in accordance with CJEU case law to some extent while transposing it into their own national laws. Service providers must also monitor content on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it meets the exceptions criteria.

The major concern about the Directive is the overly strict banning of content service providers due to the strict obligations placed on them. When considering the scope of the service provided by intermediaries, unfortunately, such cautious approach will not be limited to the EU. One of the main goals of copyright law is to protect freedom of expression and promote creativity. The proposed means can hardly achieve these goals. Consequently, the European Commission has tried to eliminate certain ambiguities by publishing the .

What the Member States Have Done

While for further administrative implementations, the Netherlands and Hungary . Germany, Austria, and Finland each have their draft texts. France into the . However the debate around Article 17 continues. Most member states’ texts have been criticized for their word-for-word adhesion to the Directive.

On July 15, the Advocate General’s opinion will be published on the annulment action initiated by Poland. Following the Commission Guidance, the opinion will provide more certainty regarding Article 17 and instruct each member state as distinct from national draft laws. While the CJEU is coping with the work overload caused by copyright cases, the case initiated by Poland surely will not be the last case to discuss the Directive. More troublesome instances of the Directive’s implementation are likely ahead of us.

The post European Copyright Directive: Which Stage is the European Union At? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Aishwerya Kansal is an��IPilogue��Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow,��LL.M��Graduate (2020) at Osgoode��Professional Development, and IP Law Clerk at��Bereskin��& Parr LLP.��

��

OVERVIEW OF CLOUD COMPUTING

Cloud Computing has become an important technology in promoting global businesses during the pandemic. The technology has helped facilitate remote work. One of its most significant benefits is lowering the costs to store, retrieve, and maintain the security of data. However, cloud storage and data services raise several legal issues for cloud computing providers and users. There are multiple Cloud Service Providers (CSP) such as Amazon, Google, Verizon, Sales Force, and Microsoft, giving customers several options to choose from. Distributed data, stored in multiple locations, have shown to be cost effective, reliable, scalable, and fault-tolerant. However, consumers may be unaware of the technology’s enormous potential and the need for it to be . In order to prevent complications, consumers should be widely aware of recent advancements in cloud technology’s potentials and the evolving regulatory landscape.

Could computing is a form of software technology which provides information services on a virtual platform without the need for extensive infrastructure and dedicated access points. Common forms of cloud computing include . SaaS is a software application over the internet which allows users access rather than allowing storage and local use. Any application that is run through the cloud service falls under this category. Dropbox is a form of SaaS, whereas Microsoft windows, a computing platform, is a form of PaaS used for running or developing applications.

Cloud computing’s rapid growth leaves limited time for identifying and implementing the regulatory frameworks necessary to protect users’ privacy and data security. Efforts to build a unified regulatory framework have already begun. Enthusiasm about building a unified framework has created common ground among nations about information privacy regulation.[1] For example, the rolled out a comprehensive proposal addressing general data protection regulations (Draft Data Protection Regulation).[2] Similarly, the United States Federal Trade Commission introduced its bill aimed at data privacy for consumers in addition to providing a detailed report in 2012 titled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change" ("FTC Report 2012"). Despite efforts to protect users’ cloud data, some legal issues remain unresolved.

LEGAL ISSUES IN CLOUD COMPUTING

Cloud computing involves collaborative efforts from different parties in providing services. Therefore, ��it is challenging to ensure compliance with a regulatory framework if one were to be put in place. A few of the underlying issues involve . In order to attempt to resolve these issues, the law needs to address the following items : (1) regarding storage and transfer of cloud data, (2) data ownership issues, and (3) control and access to cloud data.

From the user’s perspective, a major issue is the location of the data storage and the data transit which depends on factors like contractual obligations as well as the service and deployment model between the CSP and users. Under some circumstances, CSPs have chosen to confine the routing of information to certain locations. In cloud technology, data’s exact location cannot be easily established. The law is particularly ambiguous with respect to . Therefore, it is crucial that users take the issue of data storage locations and transit routes into account before moving their data to cloud. Though data should be owned by the user who uploads it to the cloud, the service level agreements (SLA) and CSP contract should explicitly state possession, custody, and control including the ownership and access to the information stored in the cloud. Users’ dependency on cloud computing services, along with an increased difficulty in controlling, accessing, and owning data, will grow in the absence of laws regulating cloud computing services. Service providers and other contracting parties should have bargaining power when deciphering standards of agreement clauses.

The federal government in has laid down on businesses when they engage in collecting, using, and disclosing personal information. Canadians mostly use cloud-based services provided by the United States and other countries. It is implied that private sector privacy legislation does not prohibit entities from using a foreign service provider. The Federal Commissioner has asked that any entity in should inform its customers of this practice and provide information about the foreign country’s laws on data privacy. In Canada, in a class action lawsuit against Facebook. Cloud computing services are not limited to external online storage used by social media and email services. Many other internet services involve cloud computing. The court in the class action against Facebook had to decide whether the social media company was reasonably notifying its users of principles governing their privacy policy and whether they were mentioned in advertisements on the platform.

CONCLUSION

Cloud has provided new options for storage and transmission of data. It has also introduced a whole new gamut of risks. Simplification of the laws is essential in promoting widespread adoption of cloud technology. The need for simplifications was concurred by the World Economic Forum. A standardized approach to the privacy and security of data with respect to cloud services would benefit the consumers and service providers in any disputes that may arise. Once adequate regulation for cloud computing is in place and rights and liabilities of users and service providers are well laid out, the industry could ��go on to Effective regulations would address rights and liabilities, while having flexibility to incorporate future developments in the field.

��

[1] Nancy J King & VT Raja, "What do They Really Know about Me in the Cloud: A Comparative Law Perspective on Protecting Privacy and Security of Sensitive Consumer Data" (2013) 50:2 Am Bus LJ 413

[2] Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation), at 1, COM (2012) 11 final (Jan. 25, 2012) [hereinafter Draft Data Protection Regulation], available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/ document/review2012/com_20121 len.pdf.

The post Digital Age, Cloud, and Intellectual Property Issues appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Across the world, policy makers in national governments, private sector and civil society, increasingly recognize the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the private sector as engines of sustainable national economic growth, job creation and exports. As a result, creating a suitable enabling economic environment for the growth of SMEs has become a key policy focus in most countries. SMEs make significant contributions to productive investments, meaningful job creation, value-added exports and eventually to the overall socio-economic growth and development of countries. A lot still remains to be done to ensure that the SMEs are fully equipped to benefit from the new opportunities and to deal effectively with the challenges posed by the quickening pace of globalization and the digital revolution that is radically transforming the way industry and business are run. This new situation highlights the importance of knowledge management, management of the intangible digital content, comprising of information, data, knowledge or intellectual assets, as never before in the evolving history of industry and business worldwide.

In the European Union, SMEs represent 99% of enterprises, excluding the non-agricultural market sectors and they provide gainful employment to more than 100 million people, which constitutes two thirds of the private sector work force and generate almost two thirds of the total turnover of all non-agricultural market sectors.

In Asia and the Pacific region, SMEs account for 90% of enterprises and provide 32% to 40% of employment. SMEs also contribute from 60% to 80% of GDP in individual Asia/Pacific economies.

In the United States of America, employment in Fortune 500 companies continues to drop.

In Latin America, SMEs make up more than 98% of enterprises and employ more than 80% of the work force.

In Africa, it can be surmised that SMEs make up more than 90% of all business and employ a substantial number of people, especially in urban areas.

SMEs therefore, are at the heart of the economic well being of most nations and any action aimed at enhancing their competitiveness has the potential of not only securing existing jobs and creating new ones, but also of creating, owning and sharing the fruits of economic wealth by the majority of the population in every country and thereby improving the quality of the lives of the majority in every country. IPwe have developed a key free AI tool that could be used to achieve this goal the Paradigm Report, at the moment we are focused on EUSMEs however there is no reason why this AI cannot benefit any SME, anywhere in the world.

As I mentioned earlier ninety-nine percent of all companies in the European Union are small or medium enterprises (SMEs). These SMEs provide two-thirds of private sector jobs and contribute more than half of the total added value created by all businesses in the EU. Despite many initiatives to increase the competitiveness of SMEs, enable better access to finance and increase commercial opportunities, EU SMEs are still failing to attract significant investment from the financial markets and missing out on commercial opportunities.

SMEs consistently highlight access to finance as one of the most pressing problems adversely affecting their business activity. Some progress has been made in improving the availability of financing and credit for SMEs through the provision of loans, guarantees and venture capital, but access to finance is still the greatest obstacle faced by individual SMEs. Enterprise-level companies searching for commercial partners have no way to quickly identify the most innovative SMEs within a particular industry based on verified information.

One of the biggest roadblocks that innovative SMEs face in gaining access to finance and commercial partners is the difficulty that commercial and financial partners have in identifying those exceptional and innovative SMEs.

Large enterprises face the flip side of that challenge: it’s hard to identify the most innovative SMEs that would present excellent opportunities for strategic commercial partnerships which could benefit both firms.

IPwe Paradigm is revolutionizing this by making it easy to identify highly innovative SMEs for potential commercial and financial partners.

There are several well-known facts that and have identified about SMEs and intellectual property (IP)1:

• SMEs are the backbone of the European economy
• SMEs with IP are significantly more likely to experience growth and even become high growth firms (HGFs)
• Patent filings perform best as HGF predictors in both high-tech and low-tech industries and trademark filings perform best in consumer durable industries
• SMEs that have bundles of IP (patents, trademarks and other IP assets) are even more likely to achieve high growth.

Using game-changing technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain, IPwe has created an IP profile for EU SMEs that is publicly accessible and free. Each profile highlights the IPwe Paradigm Score which is an algorithmic-based score of the competitive strength of the SME’s patent portfolio within its industry.

IPwe uses a proprietary method of assessing the quality of the SME’s verified patent assets held in the EU, along with other important factors such as the commercialization and monetization potential of those assets and recent technology trends in global markets.

Read the full article .

Alexander Weir is a Business Mentor for Prince's Trust in the UK. He has a BA Hons in Politics from the University of Hull and a Master of Laws from NYU in IP, Innovation and Information Technology.

The post Creating Global Opportunities for Innovative SMEs: IPwe Verified IP Asset Profiles and Ratings for EU SMEs appeared first on IPOsgoode.