Featuring Professor Victor Nabhan
Genest Global Faculty

Thursday October 10, 2013, 9:30am to 5:00pm
Osgoode Hall Law School, 91��ɫ

IP Osgoode and the Pierre Genest Memorial Fund are proud to present “User-Generated Content under Canadian Copyright Law”, a full day symposium focused on the legal and commercial aspects of user generated content (“UGC”) featuring , the Genest Global Faculty member for the fall 2013 term at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The symposium promises to be an informative, lively and entertaining one with live performances and demonstrations by various UGC artists and practitioners, followed by presentations by leading experts in academia, the legal profession, and industry.

Some of the topics for discussion include an analysis of the UGC exception under Canadian copyright law, the interaction of the UGC exception with fair dealing, specific legal aspects of fan fiction and appropriation art, and whether the UGC exception is in conformity with international treaty standards. Representatives from SOCAN, BCE, and Legitimix will also provide some insights on the commercial aspects of UGC and practical strategies for minimizing risks associated with UGC.

The panel sessions will be chaired by IP Osgoode faculty members, Professor David Vaver, Professor Carys Craig, Professor Ikechi Mgebeoji, and IP Osgoode’s founder & director, Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino.

Lunch will be served. Please RSVP to (Event Code: UGC) by October 3, 2013. All are welcome and there is no registration fee. Click for more information and the latest version of the symposium agenda.

The post REMINDER: UGC Under Canadian Copyright Law Symposium appeared first on IPOsgoode.

This new course has been a long time coming. Commercializing IP will provide a new learning opportunity for our student volunteers and allow them to obtain credit for their work completed as a part of the team.  This course is also open to students who are eager to learn more about intellectual property.

The is a needs-based innovation-to-market legal clinic staffed by law students and run in collaboration with the (OCE), who refers clients to the Clinic, and .   Students who are selected to be IP Osgoode Clinical Fellows provide business strategy and IP advice to individuals or start-up companies and by working pro bono, serve to minimize the client’s legal costs.

Commercializing IP will focus on issues related to the creation, development, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property rights as a business asset for both high-growth start-ups and established businesses.   It will examine the entire process of creating, capturing, protecting, leveraging, and transferring technology and ideas, including internal strategies designed to incentivize scientists and engineers engaged in innovation and idea generation; deciding whether, what, where, and how to obtain IP registrations and the related economics; developing commercialization strategies (selecting the target market and application for the idea) and business models; drafting and negotiation of technology transfer/licensing agreements; offensive and defensive IP strategies; assessing competitive IP; negotiating and interpreting IP-sensitive contracts including licenses, confidentiality agreements and non-competition agreements; transactional IP protection, with discussions on China, India and other emerging markets; and key technology specific legal issues relating to software, digital communications and data processing, mobile devices and social media, financial services and life sciences.

The course will also address the financing options available to the high-growth start-up, including crowd-sourcing and other modern financing techniques.

The course instructors are , Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel at , and , a partner at Torys LLP.   Ed Fan and his associates at Torys LLP, and , are the legal supervisory team that oversee the work of our IP Osgoode Clinical Fellows.

For the past two years, Ed Fan and his team have been providing invaluable theoretical and practical legal training for the IP Osgoode Clinical Fellows.  This rigorous training and orientation that all our Fellows undergo will now be formalized in this new Commercializing IP course.   All students selected to be IP Osgoode Clinical Fellows for the upcoming 2013-2014 academic year will be required to enroll in this new course for the winter 2014 term.   Since completion of the Commercializing IP course will become a pre-requisite for volunteering at the IP Osgoode Innovation Clinic next year, all students wishing to apply for an IP Osgoode Clinical Fellow position for the summer 2014 term and fall 2014 term should also enrol in this new course for the winter 2014 term.

Commercializing IP will leverage the experiences and challenges from leading experts in the fihttp://www.iposgoode.ca/wp-admin/post.php?post=21432&action=editeld and employ a variety of case-studies, including one of course instructor’s own companies, PharmaTrust (now MedAvail), a rapid-growth start-up in the pharmacy automation business and one of Ontario’s largest angel-funded start-up organizations.

While students with some background in substantive areas are welcome, no prior experience in these areas is required. Of course, as I often say in my own course syllabi,  students’ keen enthusiasm to learn about IP issues and participation in the course is strongly encouraged.

If you have any questions about this new course or would like more information, please contact iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca.

Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino is the Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, the IP Intensive Program and the IP Osgoode Innovation Clinic, and an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Announcing the New Exciting Commercializing IP Course at Osgoode appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Full results from the Harold G. Fox Canadian Intellectual Property Moot can be accessed .

was a crafty piece written by and his esteemed colleagues at . The problem took advantage of the recent developments that the Supreme Court of Canada’s have brought to infringement and fair dealing. Specifically, we were compelled to argue first whether the shortening of a licensed, long-lost Batman film to a song-specific clip (“Batman Style”, popularized by the fictional Korean artist “Pi”) infringed the copyright of the appellant’s sound recording. Second, if infringement was established, we turned to whether the respondent, Professor Michael Caine, could rely on the “private study” exception for fair dealing in providing the sound recording in its original context within the cinematographic work. It was a very fun problem, and I had the particularly onerous task of arguing that Caine’s usage was indeed fair dealing with the work.

The Osgoode team that I proudly represented consisted of myself (, Class of 2014) and Ryan Keller (Class of 2014) representing the respondent Michael Caine (and we had the pleasure of enduring many “Team Ryan” and “R-Squared” colloquialisms throughout the moot), David Bowden (Class of 2014) and Robert Trenker (Class of 2014) representing the appellant Thomas Hardie Music, Inc, with (Class of 2013) rounding out the team as our invaluable researcher.  We all took Legal Reform seminars with  in the fall 2012 term, and we all soon found out just how valuable Professor Vaver’s tutelage was.

Our preparation was extensive. We received the problem in mid-November, but with the time constraints that fall exams placed upon us, we did not sink our teeth into the problem until mid-December. Our fantastic coaches, , , and from provided us with timelines and support throughout the process, which was invaluable.  IP Osgoode's own served as the faculty advisor to the team.  Speaking on behalf of the entire team, we would like to offer our deepest thanks to them. We owe a great deal of our success to our coaches. After countless hours of factum prep, including many Google Doc and Skype sessions, our appellant and respondent teams submitted our respective facta for grading by the Fox Moot Committee in early January. Then began the oral preparation. We had many grinding practice sessions with constructive feedback from our coaches at Cassels (who themselves argued many of the cases that we cited at the Supreme Court – giving us unique insights regarding appellate advocacy) as well as innumerable team sessions, and we quickly found ourselves ready to moot!

The Fox IP Moot took place this past weekend (February 22-23, 2013) at the Federal Court of Canada, in downtown Toronto. Teams from five law schools across Ontario competed for the Harold G. Fox Cup: Osgoode Hall Law School, Queens University, University of Toronto, University of Windsor, and Western University. The competition began on noon Friday with the Fox IP Lecture, delivered by the Honorable , Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Chief Judge Rader gave a highly entertaining lecture: IP Rights – Do the Remedies Fit the Infringement?, which spoke to the forces that he perceives as governing IP law. While I was disappointed that the "forces" did not pertain to a Jedi versus Imperial struggle, I was captivated by his views on the misconceptions of “patent trolls”, the strong influence of the media on IP cases, and the “culture” of using litigation as a commercial strategy. However, what stood out to me the most was his concerns about the re-entry of the non-expert jurist in the field of IP. In a personal conversation, he acknowledged that IP is becoming a more “sexy” field of law, and the Supreme Courts (most of which do not have IP experts, save for the Honourable of our own Court) are taking a greater interest in what has historically been the predominant realm of the Federal Courts. He cited the primary difference as one of approach, where the Federal Courts emphasize bright line tests and administrative standards, other Courts favour reasonableness standards. I could talk in much greater length about this riveting lecture, which also included strong encouragement for students to learn international IP law and references to , but in the interest of space, I must move on.

Shortly after the lecture (which was delivered while we enjoyed a decadent lunch at Arcadian Court), the first of two preliminary rounds started. New to this year’s competition, each appellant and respondent team would face the opposing side of every other school. This meant that we would moot twice in each of the two preliminary rounds (with the second held Saturday morning), with the aggregate score of our four preliminary moots and our factum determining which teams would move on to the playoff rounds. In the preliminary round, each panel consisted of one jurist and two IP practitioners, which made for a challenging and interesting dynamic. I must say that the that Dimock Stratton was able to attract to this event was, as always, top notch and we were truly humbled in appearing before them.

The preliminary rounds were a lot of fun, and some of the panels were incredibly challenging. I personally faced the difficult task of convincing some very “user rights” focused professionals that we should broadly interpret “private study” in the context of fair dealing. All of our team members became very passionate about our positions, and this certainly helped our persuasiveness in the Moot Court. After each round, we were given extensive feedback from the panels, which was a unique and fruitful way to develop our advocacy skills. Learning from the perspective of judges, who regularly hear appeals, and practitioners, who regularly make them, was one of the greatest benefits of this competition. Perhaps my favourite (and potentially embarrassing) piece of feedback was from the Honourable Justice Lois Roberts of the Ontario Superior Court who praised my voice, calling it “beautiful” and suggesting that I should be a singer. However, I refrained from serenading future judges. Justice Roberts also invited us all to sit in her seat at the bench, allowing us to gain her visual perspective, which made us all cognizant of the subtleties that the judiciary can pick up on.

After lunch on Saturday, the semi-finalists were announced, and we were extraordinarily lucky in that both of our teams advanced. Myself and Ryan as the respondents placed first among respondents in the preliminary rounds, while David and Robert placed second among appellants, in what were both inevitably close races. In a strange and wonderful twist of fate, this set the stage for an all-Osgoode semi-final round in front of the Honourable Justice Robert Blair of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the newly appointed Honourable Justice Michael Manson from the Federal Court, and the Honourable Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C. a former chair of the CRTC. We both had undoubtedly our best rounds to date, bringing our best arguments forward while facing a very sophisticated and challenging bench, and had a lot of fun doing it. To faceoff against our own teammates who we have been working, commiserating, and practising with for months was exciting and a great way for the moot to come full circle.

In what was later described to me by Justice Manson as the toughest decision that he has made as a jurist yet, our incredible respondent team, David and Robert, moved on to represent Osgoode in the finals. Ryan and I could not have conceded to better opponents. In a packed courtroom full of other competitors, practitioners, friends, and academics (including IP Osgoode Director Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino), David and Robert faced the University of Toronto respondent team who had trumped the Western appellants in their semi-final round. Although the teams were anonymous to the judges at the time, this created a Subway Series that the Fox Moot had never seen before, and a proper (yet cordial) grudge match. In a panel that most experienced litigators would fear, our finalists’ submissions were received by five judges: Justice Rothstein, Chief Judge Rader, the Honourable Justice Stephen Goudge of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Honourable Justice David Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Honourable Justice Judith Snider of the Federal Court. Both teams were challenged early and often, with Chief Judge Rader proving to be particularly adversarial, hitting each oralist with a broad and difficult question within 30 seconds of commencing. Each of the four oralists were graceful, deferent, and rose to the occasion.

We were kept waiting for a few hours until an awards dinner at the University Club. In the end, Osgoode was triumphant with David Bowden and Robert Trenker claiming the Harold G. Fox Cup for the best mooting team. Myself (Ryan Heighton) and Ryan Keller took home the Gordon F. Henderson Award for the (which we could not have done without the hours of editing and revisions by Danny Titolo). The Donald F. Sim and Dimock Stratton LLP awards for best oral advocate and best mooter in a non-graduating year, respectively, went to Kevin Siu from the University of Toronto respondent team. Needless to say, we are incredibly proud to be members of the Osgoode community and represent the school well at such a prestigious event.

I could easily write another 2000 words to further texturize all of the exciting, nerve-wracking, and hilarious things that happened this weekend and it would not do this event justice. Perhaps the biggest thing that I will take away from this moot is the value of collaboration in law. As with many other fields of law, the intellectual property bar is incredibly collaborative, cordial, and this is evidenced by the generous and vast that the event received. Indeed, this event would not be an annual resounding success if not for this collaboration. We would like to thank all of the sponsors, the organizers, our coaches, and professors for making this possible. The event was orchestrated flawlessly, the abundance of food and drink at the receptions was remarkable, and everyone involved was incredibly accommodating and friendly. On a more personal note, I want to thank my teammates for making this a truly enjoyable and enlightening experience. I truly believe that we were as successful as we were because of our great collaboration and constant challenging of one another, and this will certainly persist as one of my most memorable law school experiences.

As a parting note, I would just like to remind all of the gentlemen reading this to heed the advice of Madam Justice Snider, and be sure to button up your jacket when you stand before the Court.

(from left) Danny Titolo, Ryan Heighton, Ryan Keller, David Bowden, and Robert Trenker comprised the award-winning 2013 Harold G. Fox Moot team for Osgoode Hall Law School.

Ryan Heighton is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and was a proud member of the 2013 Harold G. Fox Moot team for Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post 'Osgoode Style' Wins Big at 2013 Harold G. Fox Canadian Intellectual Property Moot appeared first on IPOsgoode.

I was looking forward to interning SOCAN for two main reasons. First, I was being given the opportunity to work on behalf of fellow musicians. When I was a professional musician, SOCAN was truly a lifeline.  Whenever I needed help, they always took the time to make sure any issues were taken care of; and since most of the money I generated through my music went straight to publishers, managers, and labels, SOCAN was the only place from which I actually received remuneration.  Second, I was going to get some much-needed real-world legal experience, including a rare opportunity to assist in preparing for the multiple upcoming hearings at the SCC that concerned communication to the public.

Although I was initially quite nervous, my first week at SOCAN went a long way to assuaging any fears I had due to my lack of experience.  Everyone I met was extremely helpful and welcoming; and they were happy to answer even the most naïve questions.  The legal department at SOCAN was actually smaller than I expected, and unusually calm considering the amount of cases they had coming up at the SCC.

I was mainly given research tasks during my time at SOCAN, and not all of it had to do with copyright or music.  In my time working with counsel there, I learned that the job of in-house counsel deals with many different areas of law.  Of course, I conducted legal research into various new proposed Tariffs, Bill C-11, and the upcoming SCC cases, but I also looked into such things as insurance contracts and corporate law.

I also worked on litigation files.  I not only had the opportunity to draft such things as Undertakings, Refusals and Statements of Claim, but I was also able to have in depth discussions about each task with the lawyers who assigned them to me.  The hands-on approach that this intensive made possible is a fantastic way to learn such things – working side by side with counsel in such a way is not possible in a classroom situation.  Every new assignment taught me more about what it is to be a lawyer, and each memo I wrote brought everything into sharper focus.

What really impressed me about SOCAN is how concerned they are with doing what is right. SOCAN is more interested in making legal access to music as easy as possible than it is in enforcing strict copyright regimes.  Most people who work there do so because they love music, and they genuinely want what is best both for creators and users.  Working with SOCAN on behalf of musicians and music users (for fair remuneration and easy legal access) was truly an honour for me.

I can easily say that interning at SOCAN was best experience of my Osgoode education so far.  It helped so much to prepare me for what it will be like once I am back in the “real” world.  Until the intensive, I found that law school had done little to prepare me for what the actual work of a lawyer was like, and my time at SOCAN went a long way to bringing the concept of working as a lawyer into focus.

Joshua Dallman is a JD student at Osgoode Hall Law School. Here, he reports on his experience at the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), while interning there as part of the inaugural offering of the (IP Intensive) at Osgoode.

The post The SOCAN Experience: A Semester in Osgoode's IP Intensive Program appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In addition, Osgoode's very own Professor David Vaver will be giving the keynote address on Intellectual Property: Is it Still a ‘Bargain’? Professor Vaver's lecture will be taking place at 12pm at the Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel (123 Queen St. West, Toronto, Canada). All are welcome to attend.

Stay tuned for more Fox Moot coverage in the coming week.

The post Reminder: Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot This Friday (February 17, 2012) appeared first on IPOsgoode.