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.

Photo by fauxels ()

Emily Prieur is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Queen’s University Faculty of Law

��

��

Background

In July 2021, the Government of Canada launched a consultation on Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and the Internet of Things (“IoT”). The goal was to balance the realities of developing technologies with the interests and needs of artists, innovators, and consumers. In the , the government stated its aim of “making sure that our digital and data-driven economy is built on a strong foundation of trust and that AI is developed and used responsibly to the benefit of all citizens”.��

In response to the call to submissions, thirteen scholars in Intellectual Property, including Osgoode Hall Professor Carys Craig and Queen’s Law Professor Bita Amani, for how the government could address these concerns. The submissions are divided into the categories of AI policy reform and IoT policy reform. In Part 1, I will summarize some of the key points presented by the group concerning AI, and in Part 2, I will focus on their suggestions concerning the IoT.

Balancing the Public Interest

The scholars acknowledged the government’s commitment to “keep pace” with technological developments in AI while through Federal statute (the Copyright Act). In so doing, they relied on , where the court described copyright laws as “a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator”. The group also stressed the importance of technological neutrality and referenced . In that case, the court grappled with the importance of developing copyright legislation independently, without prioritizing one form of technology over another. The court placed further emphasis on the importance of drafting copyright legislation impartially, without making specific objectives concerning AI, as the technology will likely continue to develop and change.

Text and Data Mining��

The group highlighted their concerns regarding the regulation of text and data mining (TDM) activity under the Copyright Act. TDM is important to the public interest, as it supports AI research and development. Moreover, TDM plays a role in scholarly and commercial research, education, and journalism.

The authors pointed to current legal barriers for those who participate in TDM. Included in these barriers was the uncertain applicability of section 3(1) of the Copyright Act. The confusion arises from . The Supreme Court concluded that the creation of electronic copies through “cashing” did not implicate the interests of copyright owners. Yet, the scholars suggested that the legislature leaves room for confusion, as it is not clear whether the interpretation of TDM would be considered prima facie infringement by the courts.

The group proposed that the Government of Canada create a fair dealing doctrine to accommodate activities, such as research to accommodate TDM activities. Further, they suggested that the Government enact specific statutory provisions that allow for legal TDM activities that require the use of copyrighted works.

Authorship and Ownership of Works Generated by AI

One burgeoning issue within intellectual property law is legal protection for AI-generated works and inventions (see IPilogue posts regarding inventorship rights for AI , , here, and ). The scholars rejected the notion of copyright protection for AI-generated works. As such, they suggested the government make amendments to the Copyright Act delineating the requirement of human authorship to gain copyright protection.

Final Recommendations

In outlining their concerns about the future of Copyright legislation and its potential to protect the interests of Canadians, the group provided their final recommendations to the government, which included amending the Copyright Act to include a broad statutory provision that allows the use of TDM without the concern of copyright infringement. The provision should apply to all technology users, including those using TDM for commercial and non-commercial purposes. The scholars also suggested amending section 29 of the Copyright Act to include a purposes list and an enumerated purpose for TDM or data/informational analysis.

Another final recommendation asked the government to clarify the definitions in section 2 of the Copyright Act to specify that an author is a human being or natural purpose. Further, it was suggested that the Government of Canada amend section 5 of the Copyright Act to specify that copyright shall not be granted to a work unless its author is human.

Public consultations are touted as one of the . Canadians can remain sanguine that the Government of Canada will heed the suggestions provided by the 13 IP scholars to protect and promote the interests of Canadians while also acknowledging the benefits that come with technological advancement. Contribution to the consultation through scholarly insight and expertise is also commendable.

The post Canadian IP Scholars Submit their Recommendations to the Federal Government on AI, the Internet of Things, and the Modernization of the Copyright Act - Part 1 appeared first on IPOsgoode.