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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meena Alnajar is an IPilogue Senior Editor, an IP Innovation Clinic Senior Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D'Agostino's IP Intensive Program.

This term, I had the amazing opportunity to work at AstraZeneca Canada through Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law and Technology Intensive Program placement. I worked within the legal team, under the supervision of Denise Lacombe, Head of Legal and collaborated with Lynne Sweeney, Legal Counsel and Cristina Aguirre, Privacy Officer as well. I know the skills and support I gained will be everlasting in my legal career.

As we slowly returned to in-person work at the company, I had the opportunity to attend some incredible in-person events. The largest event was the All-Employee Event held at the Mississauga Convention Centre. The event started with the CEO’s opening address reflecting on AstraZeneca’s growth over the last few years. AstraZeneca has expanding clinical trial and research teams which is a hopeful development for research in rare diseases. I was seated with a digital marketing employee, employees in the clinical research and development team, and an employee in the respiratory team. We discussed how we can continue to strengthen our teamwork skills and how everyone’s projects were going. I appreciated the company’s efforts to encourage employees to acknowledge not only the strengths, but areas for growth.

The legal team at AstraZeneca is highly adaptable, working with Denise and AstraZeneca’s different teams, I observed her skillfully respond to urgent issues and achieve compromise amongst team members. Some work highlights for me personally were: drafting a procurement contract, investigating the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (“PMPRB”) Draft Guidelines, and drafting a response to an Access to Information request.

AstraZeneca is a global company, some contracts can require engaging in services in other countries. The contract must be adjusted to meet a jurisdiction’s requirements through a side letter. I worked with Lynne to draft a side letter and she taught me the necessary terms and considerations to comply with Canadian laws, in particular taxation law, privacy requirements in consultation with the Privacy Officer, Cristina, and currency. Drafting this letter helped me practice and execute my contract drafting skills which is essential in corporate law.

It is a tumultuous time for patented medicine pricing in Canada. On October 6, 2022, the PMPRB released Draft Guidelines and is open to consultation until December 5, 2022. PMPRB’s proposed changes have been the subject of judicial proceedings. The new Guidelines could affect how improvement medicines are priced and change the ‘excessive price’ definition. I researched the case law to find areas that may be concerning for the industry and suggested how AstraZeneca could approach the consultation. I remain intrigued to see how the Guidelines, set for implementation in January 2024, may be changed upon receiving consultations.��

As someone with an avid interest in IP, I wanted to be involved in patent-related work. AstraZeneca focuses on clinical research but also marketing and sales of its IP. An ongoing challenge in the pharmaceutical industry is a patented product’s loss of exclusivity. Once the patent expires, the product’s position in the marketplace is compromised as generics can enter without risking infringement litigation. I was fortunate to sit in and learn about creative ways the marketing team was proposing to continue to compete in the market after losing exclusivity.

I also drafted an Access to Information request response letter. An anonymous requester sought information about a contract AstraZeneca recently entered. To balance Canada’s principles regarding freedom of information and the right to maintain confidential business information, a company can respond to the relevant Access to Information office within the government with proposed redactions to the information requested before releasing it to the requesting party. While people have a right to information, companies also have the right to protect confidential, commercially sensitive information that would compromise its competitive position or reveal its business practices. I exercised analytical and legal research skills to support the proposed redactions grounded in the statute, Access to Information Act, and competition law principles. This exercise prepared me for requests that all lawyers typically receive and must respond to for their client.

This placement at AstraZeneca was an invaluable experience as to an in-house counsel’s work experience and a global company’s operations. My insights were encouraged and developed through Denise’s guidance, Cristina’s privacy expertise, and Lynne’s feedback sessions. I contributed towards projects that will help launch lifesaving medicines. Learning about the breadth of stakeholders involved in pharmaceutical development was an unforgettable experience that has deepened my appreciation for this innovative industry. I am grateful to Professor Pina D’Agostino, Ashley Moniz, Denise Lacombe, Lynne Sweeney, and Cristina Aguirre for fostering this opportunity.

The post Learning About the Business of Healthcare and Innovation: My Internship Experience at AstraZeneca Canada appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Meena Alnajar is an IPilogue Senior Editor, IP Innovation Clinic Senior Fellow and 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Photo by Buda Photography

On November 9, IP Osgoode, Reichman University and Microsoft hosted the first in-person Bracing for Impact Conference since 2019. The conference focussed 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.

Spot was one of many unforgettable guests at IP Osgoode’s Bracing for Impact Conference. A four-legged metal friend, Spot is an inspection robot from Boston Dynamics that explores hazardous spaces to capture digital images and generate mapping data. Currently, Spot is used by , Boston Dynamics’ North American partner. Spot is tasked with gathering data in hazardous spaces, such as construction sites and mines. The hope is that Spot can reduce harm and liability that stem from working in dangerous spaces. Spot has pre-assigned walking routes over huge expanses. While walking, Spot can take images through a mounted camera. We watched Spot scan a symbol resembling a QR code on the wall before completing its pathway. Spot also avoided obstacles, such as a large box in its way, by walking over the obstacle, walking backwards, or walking around it. MFE Inspection Solutions has other inspection drones that create 3D maps, but Spot was the four-legged star of the conference, with the flexible limbs necessary to enter these spaces and promote workplace safety.

The Bracing for Impact Conference closed with two impactful announcements: the launch of 91��ɫ’s Center for AI and Society (CAIS) and the IP Osgoode David Vaver Medal of Excellence in Intellectual Property Law Award Ceremony.

Launch of the 91��ɫ Centre for Artificial Intelligence & Society

Photo by Buda Photography

, Vice President of Research and Innovation at 91��ɫ, introduced the Centre for AI and Society. Given that 91��ɫ has an edge in its application of AI in its academic programs, this Centre is dedicated to addressing AI’s ethical issues to ensure AI is applied to society’s benefit. Directors Professor , Associate Professor at Osgoode, and Professor , Professor and 91��ɫ Research Chair in human and computer vision, lead the centre. The Centre is the positive result of 91��ɫ’s AI Task Force, whose report “Fostering the Future of AI” demonstrated that an organized research unit was needed to examine AI’s impacts on society. The Centre brings members from seven faculties together to understand AI’s potential, mitigate AI’s risks, and make AI use more inclusive. The Centre is currently partnered with Microsoft and is a collaborative mission that will hopefully expand to include more members to investigate how AI can empower society.

IP Osgoode David Vaver Medal of Excellence in Intellectual Property Law Award Ceremony

Photo by Buda Photography

For the first time since 2018, the IP Osgoode David Vaver Medal of Excellence in Intellectual Property Law was presented in person. This award recognizes students who are involved with and committed to IP law during their time at Osgoode. Toronto-based artist and designer for the Royal Canadian Mint designed the medal. The Honourable Justice Rothstein and Professor Vaver presented the award. Justice Rothstein remarked, “medals and awards are named after people for a reason; this one carries Professor Vaver’s name … he is one of the foremost academics of our generation.” Justice Rothstein highlighted Professor Vaver’s achievements, such as being cited 23 times by the Supreme Court of Canada, an impressive feat considering how few IP cases are argued at that level.

Each recipient offered reflections on the award and hopes to engage with AI in their future career. The 2019 recipient, Aviv Gaon, remarked that the medal reflects the highlights of his rich academic journey. The 2020 recipient, Ian Stedman, pointed out that AI has tremendous potential to help those with rare diseases. The 2021 recipient, Ryan Wong, hopes to exude some of Professor Vaver’s qualities, such as his rigour and spirit. Wong urged us to be ready to tackle complicated issues as we approach the inevitable: the inclusion of AI in our society. This year’s recipient, Bonnie Hassanzadeh, told the audience that IP Osgoode helped her find purpose and commitment in her law student experience and she looks forward to the future of AI and precision medicine.

Professor Vaver concluded the ceremony with a reminder: In IP law, you cannot be a hedgehog, a creature who knows only to roll into a ball. Rather, we must be foxes, remaining flexible and knowing many things deeply. This award serves as a reminder to be creative and invested in new ideas, as these skills are essential in the practice of IP law.

The post Bracing for Impact: Meet Spot, Learn about the Launch of the CAIS and Awarding IP Excellence appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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

It may be no secret that trade secrets contribute to a business’ economic value and confer a ‘competitive edge.’ However, when that secret is lost by insiders who had a duty of confidence, how can the law step in to help? On , biomedical company �ʰ��dz�é��é Biomedical LLC (“�ʰ��dz�é��é”) received no recourse or remedy for a revealed trade secret. �ʰ��dz�é��é failed to persuade the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to revive a trade secrets against the consultant it had hired to find a buyer.

Trade secrets, unlike other intellectual property rights, are not registered nor publicly disclosed. Trade secrets require such as: value (economic/industrial), that it is kept secret, and that there are reasonable measures in place to keep it confidential. Once disclosed, the trade secret loses its necessary quality of confidence that makes it confidential and valuable to a business. Therefore, the most important element of a trade secret is that it is kept secret.

A of US trade secret litigation demonstrated that, in satisfying the court that ‘reasonable measures’ were taken, confidentiality agreements like non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) are most often a determining factor. NDAs are particularly useful where a company must disclose its trade secrets to fellow employees, which was the case for �ʰ��dz�é��é.

In 2017, �ʰ��dz�é��é, a biomedical company focused on blood-clotting products, entered into an agreement with the consulting firm to find a buyer. Duff & Phelps then contacted , a Managing Director at a private equity firm and a board member at Z-Medica, another medical company in the blood-clotting products space. Both Schillinger and Duff & Phelps (on behalf of �ʰ��dz�é��é) entered into an NDA. During a for the potential deal between Z-Medica and �ʰ��dz�é��é, �ʰ��dz�é��é some confidential information regarding its products to Schillinger, who then revealed the information to Z-Medica. Z-Medica then applied for a continuation of a that allegedly contained �ʰ��dz�é��é’s confidential information and pulled out of a potential deal.

�ʰ��dz�é��é sued Z-Medica, alleging that it stole trade secrets and violated NDAs. The parties there settled, but �ʰ��dz�é��é subsequently sued their consulting firm, Duff & Phelps, for breaching their contract in failing to prevent �ʰ��dz�é��é from disclosing its trade secrets. This suit was first dismissed by a court. On appeal, the Court held that their contract only required Duff & Phelps to be responsible for its . , on behalf of his private equity firm, signed the NDA, making him not liable for Z-Medica’s conduct and use of the trade secret. The Court found that disclosed its own secrets to Schillinger, so �ʰ��dz�é��é is responsible for revealing its own secrets. It is a classic case of claim construction and ambiguity in contractual agreements. This case serves as a reminder that when you ask someone to keep a secret, be very specific about whom you are asking, what the secrets are, and from whom they should be kept.��

While trade secrets are valuable and protected by law, if the company itself is disclosing that information and is not careful to track who is not obligated to keep it a secret, then the company has not taken reasonable measures to keep it confidential. If a business does not act to protect trade secrets, courts may not help either.

The post The Secret’s Out: US Court dismisses �ʰ��dz�é��é Biomedical’s Trade Secret Lawsuit Again appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Smorazanm ()

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

Dua Lipa’s 2020 pop hit “Levitating” is facing copyright infringement lawsuits as of March 2022. Two separate song-writing teams, those for and , claim the song ripped off their own and filed complaints with their state federal courts. Copyright infringement proceedings are the best course of action for instances of song stealing, but are often expensive and difficult to win, as a complainant must demonstrate than ‘alike sounds’ or ‘similar vibes’.

Claimants have the best chance of success if they can prove direct copying of their work, but considering the different lyrics and disparate sounds, these artists are unlikely to plead direct copying. Copyright infringement of a musical work in the United States typically finding two elements, access to the work and substantial similarity. For “Levitating,” the complainant filed at the end of February 2022 in a Los Angeles federal court. Members of the reggae Artikal Sound System allege that the song is substantially similar to its 2017 song “Live Your Life”.

The complaint, filed on March 4, 2022 in New 91��ɫ federal court is by songwriters L. Russel Brown and Sandy Linzer accusing copying of their 1979 disco “Wiggle and Giggle All Night”. These complainants have succeeded in copyright infringement claims, now holding the copyright to Miguel Bosé’s 1980 song “Don Diablo” that was found to infringe on the 1979 track.

Access

Musical such as Bright Tunes Music Corp v Harrisongs Music Ltd hold that access can be subconscious. The defendant may not have accessed the song personally through a search or download and still be liable. If the song is widely disseminated due to its popularity, then access may be found and the defendant may be liable for unconsciously plagiarizing.

The complainant’s song was not available on large platforms such as iTunes and has very limited number of plays on YouTube. Given its limited availability at the time, they may have difficulty proving their work was accessed by Dua Lipa’s team. The second complainant’s song has been accessible to the public for decades, so it may be more successful on the accessibility element for an infringement lawsuit.

Substantial Similarity

In the United States, if the song was not easily accessible, then the burden of proof for substantial similarity will likely be . Substantial similarity asks whether the average listener would think the songs are similar enough when listening to them . This analysis requires looking at the song’s composition and, possibly, expert testimony. Courts may analyze elements like melody and chord progression. For instance, the second complainant stated that Levitating uses the complainant’s “signature” melody times throughout the song. It is also important to distinguish between the similarity of the songs and their similarity in the industry. A certain theme, like the resurging ‘disco-era’ Dua Lipa was by, is persisting in the music industry so that songs may sound similar but not to a substantial degree that constitutes copying.

Next Steps

Although Dua Lipa’s team has yet to provide comment, she must still give her own defence in response to these lawsuits. The easier defence would be to show the songs are not substantially similar through her own expert analysis of each song’s composition. The team likely would not succeed in advancing a public domain , which states that the copyright protection for a work has expired or it failed to meet the protection for copyright protection. Neither complainants’ work has technically , as artists receive protection for the life of the artist plus seventy years. They may try to argue that the song borrows elements of the prior works that are not under copyright, which did not require creative input. Either way, Dua Lipa’s “Levitating” may be brought down to Earth by these lawsuits’ gravity and possible damages.

The post No Longer “Levitating”: Dua Lipa’s Song Bogged Down by Two Lawsuits appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Timusu ()

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

In March 2021, Rogers Communication Inc. announced an upcoming to buy Shaw Communications Inc for a US$26 billion takeover. If successful, Rogers will become Canada’s -largest cellular and cable company operator. Canada would resultingly have wireless providers to choose from instead of four. This deal is now facing opposition from some of Canada’s key regulatory powers. On March 3 2022, Canada’s of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Francois-Phillippe Champagne stated that “The wholesale transfer of Shaw’s wireless licenses to Rogers is fundamentally incompatible with our government’s policies for spectrum and mobile service competition, and I will simply not permit it.” But why should Canada prevent industries from extremely profitable mergers and acquisitions?

Ottawa’s main concern with this deal is the monopolization of essential services like cell phones and Internet. With a monopoly, Rogers is free to raise prices because no other competitor could offer a better price matching Rogers’ breadth of services. Many are concerned that they will not be able to compete with Rogers, and consumers worry they will suffer higher cell phone prices without other options. Rogers gave an assurance that it would not raise prices until at least years after the deal’s closing. But that assurance may not be enough to stop Rogers from continuing to competitors in the future, leaving fewer choices for Canadian consumers. Financial analysts acknowledge that while the government may try to reject the deal, the government’s statements are not necessarily fatal. predict that the deal will close, but, to maintain competition in the industry, Rogers will not be able to buy all of Shaw’s wireless business.

The Rogers-Shaw deal is likely moving ahead. On March 24, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) Rogers’ acquisition. The CRTC stated that, subject to modifications, Rogers’ proposal would not unduly affect Canada’s competitive landscape. The CRTC made stipulations to its approval that could once again balance Rogers’ acquisition and fair competition in the wireless service marketplace. Rogers will contribute towards various initiatives promoting local news and independent projects. Rogers must also create an news team with journalists in all provinces to provide news content to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities. These stipulations could help stimulate local journalism and production companies, addressing concerns regarding the survival of local wireless services after this big merger.

While Canadian government officials seek to discourage anti-competitive behaviours, Canada’s Competition Act was last reviewed in . Since then, Internet giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon have often participated in anti-competitive practices online to dominate the marketplace. In Canada, Google and Facebook pocket of online advertising revenues, yet no laws have come in to stop them. Minister Francois-Phillippe Champagne announced on , to modernize competition law through legislative reform of the Competition Act. Through a broad review, the Competition Bureau has suggested changing the in the current competition law. This defence saves mergers that harm competition so long as the deal creates cost savings or other efficiency gains. Rogers may rely on this defence to keep the deal moving forward. Though not yet rejected, the Rogers-Shaw deal may be a catalyst for Minister Francois-Phillippe Champagne to implement changes to competitive practices.

The post The Wi-Fi is A, B, or C—the Rogers-Shaw Deal: Limiting choice in a wireless marketplace? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Ann H ()

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

��

On February 11, 2022, a class action lawsuit against for double ticketing settled for $6 million dollars. People who used Airbnb for the first time since October 2015 may be eligible for up to $45 in credit. Vancouver resident filed the class action in 2017 on the basis that Airbnb appeared to charge Lin $122 a night for what he booked as a $108 night on the app. The act of charging a consumer the higher of two or more prices is known as and it is a criminal offence in Canada under Section 54 of the Competition Act. This class action signified that parties can be found guilty of double ticketing even in online spaces.

Double ticketing in Canadian law is described as charging a consumer the of two or more prices when it is expressed in the following ways: on a product (its wrapper or container), on anything attached to the product including anything on which the product is mounted for display or sale, on an in-store or other point-of-purchase display or advertisement. Online spaces, such as applications, are not explicitly included in that list as this section was first enacted in . The Section intends to prevent consumers from being by the prices they are charged. Interestingly, prices that are not in-store or at the point of purchase, such as newspaper ads, . This exclusion could give way to online sellers having different prices listed online, as these online prices appear to be neither in-store nor definitively at a point-of-purchase. The Airbnb class action helps clarify how courts may contemplate a Section 54 offence for online retailers.

In its initial arguments, claimed that double ticketing did not apply because the two prices for a single accommodation are the price of two different products. The first price reflects the actual accommodation offered by hosts to guests and the higher price is the listing service. found this pleading to be a mischaracterization of Airbnb’s own products and that it was not plain and obvious that these are two prices for two different products. Airbnb was found guilty of double ticketing, then the decision. On appeal in federal court, the parties reached a of $6 million dollars and Airbnb avoided admitting liability. Person(s) guilty of a Section 54 can face a maximum fine of up to $10,000 and/or a year’s imprisonment.

Justice Gascon also indicated that the class action’s Section 54 claim is and stretches Section 54’s potential interpretation. However, this class action is not the first Section 54 class action against online sales. On it was reported that a class action against WestJet for double ticketing was approved. In that action, the plaintiff argued that WestJet claimed in its published tariff that the would be free yet proceeded to charge passengers anyways. Businesses can take advantage of online sales by posting one price, then adding non-optional fees in the final checkout. The current provision, Section 54 of the Competition Act has not developed to include online price differences in the list of double ticketing offences. These emerging class actions demonstrate how case law can help adapt statutes to changing sale environments and serve as an expensive warning to retailers that hide fees to better market products online.

The post Double Trouble: Airbnb Class Action for Double Ticketing Settles at $6M appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Zdeněk Macháček ()

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

On Wednesday, March 9, I attended the “Breaking the Bias in IP: Reflections from Women in Leadership” held by ChIPs’ Toronto chapter. is a global not-for-profit organization dedicated to showcasing women in leadership positions in intellectual property and technology careers. ChIPs’ is to advance and connect women in technology, law, and policy. They aim to through diversity of thought, participation, and engagement. The organization currently has over members in Canada, the United States, and Europe. ; still, it is important to understand the lived experiences of women-identifying professionals in this area of law in order to bring about change and awareness to this issue.

This event was structured as a question-and-answer panel, with some questions from the hosts and some from the 90+ audience participants on Zoom. The panelists were three women in the intellectual property and technology fields: Sheema Khan, a patent agent currently working at Kinaxis and previously at Stratford Managers Corporation; Judith Robinson, a senior consultant with Fineberg Ramamoorthy LLP focusing on patent litigation; and Alexandria Daoud, a patent agent and vice president of intellectual property and regulatory affairs at Anyon Systems Inc. The event was opened and closed by Daphne Lainson, a partner and chair of Smart & Biggar LLP, and moderated by Beverley Moore, the national leader of BLG’s intellectual property litigation group. It was inspiring to see women from diverse career paths, as not all started as IP professionals or were even sure of entering the IP space.

The Pool Problem

A common concern regarding diversity in many career fields is ‘the pool problem’. Companies put forth that they have a limited number of qualified applicants who are diverse and this drives to disparities in the workplace, as opposed to peoples’ internal biases. The pool problem has especially grown in intellectual property and technology law, with one study reporting that of patent attorneys and agents are women. The pool problem starts early, with less women than men enrolling in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics () programs for their bachelor’s degrees. While the pool problem persists, the panelists shared experiences and advice that demonstrate that the pool problem does not have to allow gender disparities to persist in the IP space.

Supporting Women in IP

Each panelist provided not only words of encouragement for women in IP, but also words of action and change. The participants were encouraged to look beyond the statistics and actually ask about women in the workplace. They suggested participants observe who is the project leader, who clients are asking for, and recommend women for these spaces where they are not considered. For instance, where a project consists of an all-men team, despite there being qualified women for the job, one can ask why women were not considered or excluded and encourage that change if possible. Similarly, they can let clients know that there are qualified women to take on their files. There are existing initiatives that encourage firms to create reference sheets for clients consisting of leading women lawyers in certain sectors, like the program.

Implementable Changes

Allyship and authenticity were two recurring themes for change at this event. Allyship should manifest in both mentorship programs, but also through colleague support such as having men in the office join committees that ensure women’s fair treatment in IP workspaces. The workplace should also welcome authenticity, in the sense that it should acknowledge women’s roles beyond billable hours, including their contribution to fostering committees within the workplace. These elements can help create positive work environments that encourage more women to follow IP careers.

Organizations like ChIPs demonstrate that women in IP can be leaders and successful, all while being themselves. Events such as Breaking the Bias are safe spaces to have these difficult, but real conversations about IP’s gender disparity, and attendees can learn implementable changes that can ameliorate this disparity in the future.

The post ChIPs’ Breaking the Bias in IP Event: Listening and Learning from Leading Women in IP appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Jaroslav Nymburský ()

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

��

Although many aspects of life have become virtual, video games have always been virtual and well-loved. Behind every video game, there is a video game designer. And behind every designer, there is a publisher.

As of January 31, 2022, Sony Interactive Entertainment (“Sony”) is behind the video game publisher Bungie. Sony the independent Washington-based publisher for USD. Sony is no stranger to the video game industry, having created the world-renowned . However, Sony’s acquisition raises questions regarding the state of Bungie’s existing games, what freedoms Bungie has in terms of video game creation, and how the acquisition affects video game competition.

An is when one company purchases most or all of another company’s shares to gain control of that company. Unlike a takeover, acquisitions are as both parties tend to agree to the terms of the acquisition for the purchase to proceed. Acquisitions may occur where a company prefers to purchase another company’s successful , rather than spend developing similar products.

In Sony’s case, it is likely more cost-efficient to purchase Bungie and gain some ownership over its future games than to create games itself for its PlayStation consoles. After all, Bungie has created such as Halo and Destiny. While Sony’s gains in this acquisition are clear, will Bungie lose recognition for its games in the future?

According to The Verge, Bungie will maintain within Sony, self-publishing games while still fully owned by Sony. The ownership raises questions regarding Bungie’s intellectual property rights. Rather than giving Sony exclusivity over its games, Bungie has committed to s available on both Microsoft-owned Xbox and Sony consoles.

A video game is full of potential intellectual property interests. The can all fall under this protection. Further details regarding Bungie and Sony’s intellectual property agreements have yet to be divulged. Typically, there is a push-pull in a merger involving video games. The buyer in the acquisition should of the acquired company’s assets (including their intellectual property) and attempt to acquire as many rights as possible. On the other side, the seller should as much of their intellectual property with the government as possible, to ensure the seller commits to licensing agreements prior to the acquisition’s completion. These considerations can help balance each party’s gains and losses in large acquisitions.

Sony’s acquisition follows a trend in big video game purchases. On , Sony’s competitor Microsoft purchased Activision Blizzard in a . Once this deal closes in 2023, Microsoft will have internal game development studios. As these acquisitions effectively reduce the number of independent video game developers, could this be an issue for competition? U.S. competition regulators are Microsoft’s acquisition to determine if it will allow Microsoft to unfairly dominate the video game market and wipe out competitors. While acquisitions can be fruitful for some, there are intellectual property and anti-trust considerations that can make these deals a losing game for independent video game developers.

The post Video Game Monopoly is Not as Fun as it Sounds: Sony Acquires Bungie, but What Will Happen to the Games? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Mohamed Hassan ()

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

2021 was a big year for innovation and small businesses—venture capital (“VC”) funding reached an all-time high with higher funding in the US than the total raised in 2020. are investors who provide funds to small businesses and start-ups that exhibit exceptional growth potential based on market studies. In return, investors get equity in the company and may have a say in future decisions. It is an increasingly and fast way to fund new businesses. Yet despite this growth, women-founded companies receive just a small cut of this large investment. In particular, women-founded companies earned only percent of the . What stands between women’s ideas and the capital that helps them flourish? Industry barriers and sociocultural changes may provide some answers.

With unemployment on the rise, several studies find women are disproportionately affected by industry setbacks. A study found that women were 1.8 times more vulnerable to lose work than men in the pandemic, which may have made investors nervous to fund many women-led businesses this year. Beyond the pandemic context, some attitudes within the VC industry that may also drive the disparity between men and women’s VC funding.

In the industry, gender stereotypes not only create a barrier to hiring women in the start-up space, but also seek to discredit a woman’s value when pursuing certain ventures. For instance, , CEO and Co-Founder of the venture-backed tech company Vivoom, noted that “Male VCs … are very comfortable now giving female entrepreneurs capital for ”, like the stereotypical household and baby products, but hesitate to fund cutting-edge software and technology founded by women. While women are now welcome in the venture space, there seems to be only certain rooms they can enter if they want to be well-funded by male VCs. Those in control of the funds seemingly control the gender disparity in VC funding of certain companies. Could the solution to the disparity be to encourage more women to act as investors?

The disparity in funding women-led ventures could stem from the fact that women make up only 6.3% of investors, based on . However, simply including more women as investors is unlikely to alleviate the disparity observed in VC funding. Women-identifying investors face problems when attempting to back ventures. Since women also experience gender disparity in business leadership, women who are investors are less likely to have been . Entrepreneurs to accept money from (and relinquish equity to) investors without this experience. The proportion of women as venture capitalists is not the only issue; how women venture capitalists are perceived by entrepreneurs is also problematic. On the surface, women-identifying VCs have investment success rates than men. Upon further examination, this performance difference is venture selection, but rather the VC firm’s features such as . Selecting women-identifying investors is not a proven solution to alleviating gender disparity. However, co-workers and entrepreneurs supporting women investors in their work environments can further women-led VC success.

The gender disparity affects several stages of the VC pipeline, from investor disparities to the lack of women-led VC in prominent sectors like tech. To close this gap, business institutes recommend of a small business. For example, if a start-up classifies itself as a social impact venture, investors should utilize the peer-assessment model instead of estimating capital flow to determine the “investability” of that venture. In addition, having positions may overcome stereotypes and biases from investors by providing evidence that women can lead successful businesses.

The gender disparity not only hinders women-led VC potential but also dismisses women-led VC’s success in the market. found that women-led start-ups can deliver high revenues, nearly twice the amount of every dollar invested. Further, women-led businesses are to employ women and their businesses are more likely to focus on and employee relationships. When you invest in women, it propagates into more opportunities for women and positive contributions to societal issues like labour relations. Limiting women’s access to funding could deprive us from innovative ideas and employment opportunities. Women have been driving exceptional businesses in the last decade and can continue to do so with greater investment. VCs should therefore consider looking beyond stereotypes and invest in women, to invest in better futures.

The post The Future is Funding? Women Receive Just 2% From a Big VC Funding Year appeared first on IPOsgoode.