Photo by Buda Photography

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

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

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

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

Professor Zachary Spicer: Smart Cities – A Unique Challenge

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

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

Dr. Vera Roberts: Marginalized Communities and AI

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

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

Mr. Keith Hemingway: Bringing AI to Utilities

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

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

Professor Guy Seidman: Bracing for the Impact of Autonomous Vehicles

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

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

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

Dan Bereskin presenting. Photo by Prof. Pina D'Agostino

Pankhuri Malik is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and an LLM Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On August 31, 2022, IP Osgoode held its first in-person event in over 2 years and the first instalment of the IP Osgoode Speaks series since 2020. At the event, , the founding partner of the highly regarded IP Boutique firm , gave a lecture on balancing rights to freedom of expression with the rights of IP owners and users.

Being the first in-person event since the beginning of the pandemic, the lecture brought us back to an energised and inquisitive group addressed by Mr. Bereskin’s ease and sense of humour. Dr. Pina D’Agostino began with opening remarks, recognized the novelty of an in-person lecture in 2022 and acknowledged all the work that went into bringing it together.

Mr. Bereskin began his lecture by acknowledging the multitude of perspectives held by different IP enthusiasts, such as academics, IP owners and private practitioners. He recognized that the views he presents maybe termed as him “going over to the dark side.”

He proposed that in IP infringement cases where freedom of expression is a concern, an injunction should not be granted without proof of actual substantial harm or proof of likely actual substantial harm. This harm primarily consists of economic loss and reputational loss. It is noteworthy that, in the absence of proof of economic loss, Mr. Bereskin does not include mere rhetoric of reputational harm, without solid evidence, within the ambit of actual substantial harm.

To make his point, Mr. Bereskin used some interesting examples of how courts have treated parodies of IP rights around the globe. He discussed examples of corporate overreach by IP owners, such as Louis Vuitton and United Airlines.

Upholding Freedom of Expression

Most notably, Mr. Bereskin discussed two unsuccessful actions by Louis Vuitton (“LV”). The first was LV’s suit against artists Nadia Plesner. Plesner had used a sketch of an LV bag in her painting to showcase the commercialising of Darfur genocide victims to appease first world audiences. This painting was later reproduced on t-shirts which were sold to raise money for the genocide victims. LV sued Plesner alleging trademark infringement. Ultimately, Plesner won the case against LV and her rendition of the bag with the court upholding her right to freedom of expression over LV’s . Mr. Bereskin astutely noted that Plesner’s artwork would have been less popular if LV had abstained from legal action.

(Photo credits: )

Mr. Bereskin also discussed LV’s case against Haute Diggity Dog, a company that makes plush toys for pets to chew through parody of famous trademarks of luxury products. One such example is Haute’s “Chewy Vuiton” plush toys. LV sued Haute for trademark infringement and trademark dilution. The US Court of Appeals (4^th circuit), however, that Haute’s products are successful parodies of LV’s handbags, do not raise any likelihood of confusion and are therefore, not infringing.

Priortizing IP Rights over Freedom of Expression

On the flip side, we have the case of United Airlines and Mr. Jeremy Cooperstalk, a Canadian professor who catalogued complaints against United Airlines on the parody website “Untied.���dz�”. United Airlines filed a lawsuit in 2012 alleging IP infringement and confusion through the website which led people to believe that they are registering complaints with United Airlines themselves. This reasoning was dubious at best, since “���Գپ����’s” website denied any allegiance with United Airlines. The Federal Court however disagreed with Mr. Cooperstalk and held his website violative of United’s IP rights. Interestingly, Jimmy Kimmel’s amended slogan (“F**k You”) and accompanying ad for the airline in the US continue to be available due to the US’s stronger protection of freedom of expression.

Takeaways

Through these, and many more examples, Mr. Bereskin made a compelling case for not only recognizing creators’ IP rights, but also the limitations of those rights, especially when they conflict with the right to freedom of expression. Overexpansion of IP owners’ rights poses risks to freedom of expression and should be curbed before these rights go rogue.

For a student who did not get an opportunity to experience Osgoode and IP Osgoode pre-pandemic, the energy and fervour of the lecture hall, the brilliant insights by Mr. Bereskin and the surrounding conversations around his lecture, this lecture served as a unique insight into the power of hallway chatter. Surrounded by snacks and coffee, the lecture was a unique opportunity to learn from an IP legend. It also marked the first step in IP Osgoode’s next chapter where a hybrid system can bring together IP enthusiasts in a most enriching way.

Left to Right: Prof. Pina D'Agostino, Dan Bereskin, & Rhoda Gryfe. Photo by Ashley Moniz

The post IP Osgoode Speaks Welcomes Dan Bereskin – Balancing Freedom of Expression with the Rights of IP owners appeared first on IPOsgoode.

2014 was another exciting year in intellectual property (IP) law. The dominant theme was one of reaction, where legislators and courts were either responding to new industry challenges posed by technology or updating existing laws to reflect already established practices.

Canada in particular saw exciting developments across all three major areas of IP, with a significant legislative update to the Trademarks Act, attempts at judicial balancing of copyright interests between users and creators, and high profile patent litigation over pharmaceuticals.

Trademarks

Trademark law saw various legislative changes and newsworthy headlines shaking up an area of IP that is typically known for its stability.

The most significant developments in Canadian trademark law this past year were brought in by the 2014 federal budget. Bill C-31, an act to implement certain measures of the budget, received in July and altered the in ways big and small. One of the changes involved updating the ������’s terminology, with “trademark” no longer hyphenated and “wares” to be referred to as “goods”. The word “trademark” also got a wider definition, encompassing a sign or combination of signs, including: holograms, sound, scent, and 3-D shapes. The trademark registration process was also simplified, and the term of registration was reduced from fifteen to ten years.

Some of the budget’s additions to the Act were far more significant in their impact on the practice of trademark law in Canada. One of the bigger changes was the adoption of the system. Used in numerous countries, the system aims to fit goods or services into specific classes such as “clothing, footwear, headgear” (Class 25). While the system will not have a practical use in Canada, it will make the country’s trademark system more internationally consistent.

The most controversial development, was the move away from a use-based system of trademark registration. As a result of Bill C-31, there is no longer a requirement to demonstrate the “use” of a trademark in Canada prior to obtaining registration. The result is a significant questioning of a foundational doctrine in Canadian trademark law. For example, the element of use in the “confusion test” will likely need to be re-evaluated. Another concern is that the new law will encourage the registering and subsequent “sitting” on marks without use, a practice that might attract litigation. We will, however, have to give it time for the consequences of Bill C-31 to be felt. Assuaging some fears is the fact trademarks can still be expunged if they have not been used for three years, meaning that a trademark registrant must continue using the mark or risk losing it.

A second legislative change affecting trademark law in Canada this year occurred towards the end of 2014. On December 9, Bill C-8 received , the . This law was created with the intention of providing rights holders and the government, with new tools and remedies in the fight against the trafficking of counterfeit goods. Some of these new mechanisms for rights enforcement include the creation of civil and criminal offences for possessing, distributing, creating, or trafficking counterfeit items for commercial purposes, and enhanced powers for customs officials.

The major trademark news stories this past year took place south of our border. In early 2014 video game and app developer was granted a U.S. trademark for the common word “candy” in association with its extremely popular app Candy Crush Saga. Consequently, concerns were raised about the impact the registration would have on further attempts to extend trademark protections over individual, ordinary words. King experienced a significant wave of public backlash in regards to the registration, and, in a strange turn of events, voluntarily abandoned its claim to the trademark. Despite the value the registration would have had for King legally, the “Saga” demonstrated how important other elements, like public relations, are to IP law and business decisions.

Another headline-grabber was the brief but very public life of in California. Shut down by the Los Angeles Health Department, the establishment proved to be a stunt by comedian . Although no litigation commenced, the opening of “Dumb Starbucks” under the justification of “parody art” sparked many conversations in the legal community (probably over a cup of coffee too).

Finally, a very public discussion about racism and trademarks was incited by the June n of Blackhorse v Pro Football, Inc. The US Patent and Trademark Office in the case made a very clear statement against culturally insensitive trademarks with the cancellation of six registrations for the name “Washington Redskins” for being “disparaging to Native Americans.” Although the actual legal and financial implications for the Washington football team were not necessarily punishing, the case launched an important discussion about the importance of moral victories and the role of public opinion and negative publicity to the value of a brand or trademark.

The important trademark cases of 2014 demonstrated the very public nature of trademark law and its inability to be isolated within the legal sphere.

Copyright

As our world becomes more dependent on technology, new copyright law issues reveal themselves in ways that can be equal parts fascinating and frustrating. 2014 was no exception, as growth and innovation in Canadian creative industries created unique disputes between the various parties in the copyright system.

Copyright trolling was a popular topic of debate in early 2014, with the court in holding that ISPs may be ordered to provide subscriber information to assist in copyright infringement proceedings. Voltage has been described as transforming Canada into for copyright trolls, as liability caps and numerous safeguards may have the effect of dissuading litigation. Consequently, it will be interesting to see how this decision intersects with the newly enacted regime that requires ISPs and other internet intermediaries to send notices of alleged copyright infringement to their customers.

The Copyright Board rendered two tariff decisions that will have wide-ranging impact on the future right to collect money for downloaded works and webcasts. In May, the Copyright Board certified , a decision which royalty rates for webcasting services in Canada. In July, the Copyright Board certified from SOCAN: Tariff 22.D.1 - Audiovisual webcasts; and Tariff 22.D.2 – Audiovisual user-generated content for the years 2007 to 2013. These tariffs will allow royalties to be collected for the performance of musical works embedded in other audiovisual works distributed via the internet. Both certifications were met with .

In a similar vein, the US Supreme Court, in the landmark , decision, ruled that retransmission constituted infringement of the public performance right. By capturing broadcast signals on miniature antennas and delivering them to subscribers, Aereo was attempting to architect its television retransmission processes in order to elude copyright royalties or licences fees. to the decision describe the ruling as having limited scope and numerous shortcomings with regard to copyright's relationship with technology and innovation.

One of the most talked-about topics in copyright law this year was the principle of technological neutrality. One case that touched on this issue was , which concerned the requirement for broadcasters to pay to use incidental copies of musical works. In that case, the CBC argued that it should not have to pay for copies of a work that it creates out of technological necessity and that to rule otherwise would impede innovation and go against the principles of technological neutrality. The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed with the broadcaster, deciding that royalties would attach to the additional copies. The Supreme Court’s willingness to hear an appeal on this issue indicates that the CBC’s argument may have legs. In March, a Quebec Court ruled in that use of a Google image search to retrieve a photo can constitute copyright infringement. This case is one out of many over the past few years which aims to ensure that digital images are just as protected as physical ones. In , the Federal Court of Appeal ruled on the alleged infringement by CBC of five images taken during the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center by the plaintiff. The issue involved determining how many acts of infringement occurred, and how to appropriately measure damages. The court noted that a “reading of paragraph 2.4(1)(c) of the Act moves in the direction of technological neutrality in that the number of infringing acts does not vary according to the number of intermediaries in the transmission chain. This is consistent with the goal of technological neutrality which the Supreme Court articulated in .” These cases (and any subsequent appeals) showcase the struggle of the law to keep up with technological advancements, and interpret questions of infringement.

Patents

In the past year the unsettled area of patent subject matter eligibility moved into the spotlight both in Canada and other jurisdictions. In the US, 2014 saw the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issue three sets of proposed guidelines for determining patentable subject matter eligibility of claims involving laws of nature, natural phenomena, and natural products. While the Guidelines were supposed to be a response to the US Supreme Court’s [2012] and [2013] decisions, the released in March was met with much for purported misinterpretation of these two landmark decisions.

In June 2014, the US Supreme Court was presented with another opportunity to address subject matter eligibility in . In Alice, the Court held that using a computer to implement abstract ideas “fails to transform” these ideas into a “patent-eligible invention”. The Court extended the two-part approach enumerated in Mayo to patentability of an abstract idea. As such, when patentable subject matter is at issue one must: (1) determine whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, and if so, then (2) decide whether there is any element in the claim that is sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. The most of the Guidelines, released on December 16, reflects the approach adopted in Alice and intends to provide consistency across technologies for determination of patent subject matter eligibility.

Just a few days after the December guidelines release, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered another decision in the breast cancer gene patent saga. Following the Supreme Court’s 2013 Myriad decision which invalidated Myriad’s human BRCA gene patents, Ambry introduced a competing breast cancer diagnostic test. Myriad brought a motion for a preliminary injunction against Ambry on the basis of patent claims that were not captured by the 2013 decision. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit the District Court’s decision to deny the injunction. Furthermore, it held that the compositions of matter claims were not patent-eligible and claims pertaining to methods of screening were also not patent-eligible as not passing the Alice test. Litigation concerning the BRCA gene patents was also prevalent in Australia. Most recently, the Federal Court of Australia that isolated nucleic acids are different from their natural counterparts, and thus patentable. The issue of patentable subject matter and gene patenting was also present in the Canadian courts in 2014. In November, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”) commenced a patent proceeding against the patent holders for genes involved in Long QT syndrome, a cardiac disorder. In their , CHEO sought a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of patents which claim isolated nucleic acids and testing methods of diagnosing and assessing a risk of Long QT. Should this case go to trial, the decision could have strong implications not only in subject matter eligibility, but the biotech industry as a whole.

The past year also saw further developments in the contentious arena of the promise of the patent doctrine in Canada. Eli Lilly continued with its $500 million NAFTA challenge against the Government of Canada and filed its before an arbitration panel. In , the Federal Court held that sound prediction of utility in fulfilling the promise does not require heightened disclosure of underlying facts and sound line of reasoning for inventions, unless it is in the context of a new use for a known compound. Also, the Federal Court of Appeal heard Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ and Apotex Inc.’s with respect to Pfizer’s drug Celebrex. In its decision, the Court outlined that the promise doctrine holds the inventor to an elevated standard where a clear and unambiguous promise has been made. However, a single promise may not apply to each claim. Regrettably for many observers, the case that was set to bring clarity to the interpretation of the promise doctrine did not happen in 2014. The much anticipated appeal of to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to Sanofi’s blood thinner Plavix, was on the eve of the trial.

Canada also sported a rare patent infringement case involving a biologic drug (pharmaceutical product derived from an organism) in 2014. At the beginning of the year, the Federal Court released its decision, holding that Janssen’s antibody drug Stelara infringed AbbVie’s patent. AbbVie was granted an injunction but later in the year the set aside both the infringement decision and the injunction. The matter was sent back to trial before another judge. If the case is to continue, its potential precedential value should not be underestimated since pharmaceutical innovation has been shifting towards biological agents in recent years.

On the legislative front, the Government of Canada released the of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and Europe (“CETA”). The Canadian government also passed , an omnibus budget bill, amending the Patent Act to be consistent with the Patent Law Treaty.

IP Osgoode in 2014

2014 was another busy year for IP Osgoode on all fronts.

We featured a star cast of guest speakers for the IP Osgoode Speaks Series. First up was Prof. Graeme Dinwoodie, who discussed the territoriality of trademarks in a post-national era. This event was followed by Dr. Emily Hudson who spoke on her empirical and qualitative research of user experiences with copyright law and user-rights exceptions. We also heard from Prof. Jane Ginsburg, who analyzed the US Supreme Court’s Aereo decision and the US’s international obligation to implement the ‘making available right’. The series ended in a most privileged fashion with the Honourable Justice Marshall Rothstein of the Supreme Court of Canada who spoke on the impacts of recent IP related cases. We recorded all of our events and if you missed any of them be sure to catch them on the site (, , ).

On October 23 to 24, 2014 IP Osgoode, along with its partners and collaborators, Lassonde School of Engineering, Stanford University’s d.school, and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, hosted the first ever legal hackathon of its kind at Osgoode Hall Law School. The focus of the hackathon was to deconstruct the unnecessarily complex status quo patent system and discuss ways to make the patenting process more navigable and user friendly. At the end of the two day IP hackathon, the four teams of hackers developed four sets of different user-friendly prototypes with high potential for real life applications. The IP Hackathon was also the result of my research funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Osgoode’s flagship IP Intensive program offered two new placements for the fall 2014 term, AstraZeneca Canada Inc. and Cineplex Entertainment. We look forward to the fall of 2015, when we will welcome Adjunct Professors Bob Tarantino and Dan Ciraco as Acting Directors for the IP Intensive, and a new group of enthusiastic students.

Now in its fourth year of operation, IP Osgoode’s Innovation Clinic continues to expand its pro bono services and clientele base through more collaborations and partnerships within 91��ɫ, namely, the Lassonde School of Engineering’s BEST Program and Innovation 91��ɫ.

2015 already promises to be another exciting and busy year for IP Osgoode. Stay tuned for an announcement of another IP hackathon event as we plan to build upon the successes of our first IP Hackathon and host another one in the very near future to tackle other aspects of IP commercialization. Preliminary plans for the next line up of stellar guest speakers for the next IP Osgoode Speaks Series are already underway. We will continue to provide up to date coverage of IP news and events, as well as an announcement of all our events activities on the IPilogue so please check out our website iposgoode.ca, subscribe to our weekly enewsletter, the IPIGRAM, follow us on Twitter (@IPilogue), and connect with us on Facebook and LinkedIn.

Of course, should you have any ideas on any projects you would like us to tackle, posts you would like us to blog on or wish to work with any of us at IP Osgoode please do get in touch as we would be delighted to hear from you.

Top 10 most read IPilogue articles of 2014

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

With contributions from Jaimie Franks on Trademarks, Jordan Fine on Copyright, and Anastassia Trifonova on Patents.

The post IP Year in Review 2014 - The Perpetual Motion of IP Law appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Call for IPilogue Editors (Summer 2012)

Deadline: January 26, 2012

IPilogue is the first blog of its kind, populated with entries from student editors at Osgoode Hall Law School and other law schools across Canada and around the world, as well as postings from expert bloggers around the globe. The blog contains comments and thoughts about current pressing intellectual property, technology, privacy and related legal issues and has a wide-ranging following in Canada and internationally from government, industry, academia and from other expert groups and members of the general public.

Many student posts have enabled greater employment opportunities for students, sparked informed debates on various issues, and led to publication in leading journals and a following in a number of law and policy forums.

Positions Available:

• IPilogue Editor (5-10 positions)
• IPilogue Art Editor (1-2 positions)
• IPilogue Web Editors (1-2 positions)

Term: May 2012-August 2012, with a possibility to continue during the 2012-2013 academic year

for more information.

Call for Clinical Fellows (Summer 2012)

Deadline: January 26, 2012

IP Osgoode has partnered with the Ontario Centres of Excellence’s (OCE) Centre for Commercialization of Research (CCR) to create a unique intellectual property (IP) clinical program that will match Osgoode law students with OCE-supported companies. Students help under-resourced clients to secure and protect their IP en route to commercial success. The Clinic's clientele reflect a diverse range of innovators drawn primarily from the information and communications technology (ICT), biotechnology, and green-technology sectors.

We are seeking law students to provide legal services to organizations that need assistance in their innovation and commercialization activities.

Positions Available: Clinical Fellows (5-6 positions)

It is expected that the majority of the work done by students will relate to patent law. The remaining time would be spent working on other IP-related needs as they arise, (e.g. assistance with trade-mark, copyright, or trade secret issues). The students’ work during the placement may include:

• reviewing business transactions involving IP
• assisting with various steps in the patent prosecution process (conducting prior art searches, reviewing patent specifications)
• performing freedom-to-operate and clearance searches
• assisting with various steps in the trade-mark prosecution process
• conducting legal research

Term: May-August 2012, with a possibility to continue during the 2012-2013 academic year

for more information.

Call for IP Intensive Internships (Fall 2012)

Deadline: January 26, 2012

The Intellectual Property Law and Technology Intensive Program (the "IP Intensive Program") provides students with training in intellectual property law and technology.  The opening two weeks of classes are dedicated to lectures from prominent members of the IP community. These lectures cover a range of topics aimed at teaching students fundamental aspects of substantive and procedural law applied in the day-to-day practice of IP law.

A key component of this clinical program is an 11-week internship with a government agency, industry, public interest group or other organization that is heavily involved with IP matters (e.g. high-technology or pharmaceutical matters). The internship, together with regular discussions and seminars, a major research paper, blogging exercises, and a seminar presentation, provides students with a comprehensive examination of important practical aspects of intellectual property law and technology.

Pre-Requisites: Students must have taken at least two of the following courses: Intellectual Property Law, Patent Law, Copyright Law or Trademark Law.

Class size: About 12-15 students

Term: Fall 2012 (15 credits)

for more information.

The post IPOsgoode: Call For Applications appeared first on IPOsgoode.