The was really the perfect opportunity for me. I saw it as a chance to work directly with clients on actual legal matters, in a field that I knew I was interested in. After expressing my interest in clean technology during my qualifying interview for the Intensive, I found out I was going to be placed with Alectra Utilities, and to be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect.

I had never really given much thought to utilities. All I knew was that every month I got a bill in the mail, and that my lights didn’t go off and my water kept running. So imagine my surprise when I entered the workforce at Alectra.

is a utilities company, which distributes energy under strict regulatory oversight by the Ontario Energy Board. But to say that Alectra is just a utilities company would be to do it a great disservice, and actually wouldn’t reflect my time there at all.

I spent most of my time working (virtually) at the Green Energy and Technology Centre (), an arm of the business focused on emerging technologies with departments like “Advanced Planning,” “Grid Innovation” and “Smart Cities.”

It turns out that Alectra not only provides energy to homes and offices, but is also at the forefront of research and development in cutting edge energy solutions, including solar power, electric vehicles, and microgrids.

While my experience allowed me to gain exposure to a wide variety of areas like corporate law and real estate law, the bulk of my time was focused on completing an IP inventory. The IP inventory allowed me to read through nearly 100 different agreements, past and present, that Alectra was a party to. I read through NDAs, software licensing agreements, government funding agreements, construction agreements, and more, absorbing as much as I could about how different relationships are structured in the renewable energy space.

As in-house counsel, I think you learn a lot about the industry you are in, just due to the sheer variety of matters that come your way. Every department needs your involvement in something at some point, and so you gain exposure to everything that the business does. In my case, I was constantly encouraged to ask more questions, and to reach out to whoever I wanted. I was also given presentations by the heads of different departments, and was invited to attend board meetings and staff meetings. I was fortunate that my supervisor even signed me up for a few different conferences during my Intensive, including a two-day conference about Canada’s electric vehicle strategy!

Besides having constant learning opportunities in-house at Alectra, I was also paired up with an associate from Gowling WLG, who supervised my work on the IP Inventory. I had weekly meetings with him, and was able to not only ask about matters pertaining to the IP Inventory directly, but about broader questions I had about IP law. I really had the best of both worlds, having direct access to both in-house counsel and an associate from a leading law firm.

Throughout the course of the semester, I also gained exposure to different leadership styles. I had never worked for such a large corporation, so I found it really interesting to observe the various ways senior members of the organization chose to lead the employees reporting to them -- In general, the attitude at Alectra was super positive and collegial, so much so that I barely noticed that everything was virtual this year. I also learned a lot about how I want to act as a professional in the legal field by observing the values that different members of the legal department exemplified. I learned that you should (try) not to stress too much, know your stuff inside and out, and most importantly, always express your appreciation for your co-workers.

If you’re reading this and you’re on the fence about participating in the IP & Technology Law Intensive program, then take this as a sign! Fill out an application and make sure you check off Alectra as your first choice placement!

Written by Rachel Marcus, JD Candidate 2021, enrolled in Professors D’Agostino and Vaver 2020/2021 IP & Technology Law Intensive Program at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a reflective blog on their internship experience.

The post Inside Alectra Utilities: My Internship Experience (IP Intensive Reflection) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Introduction

Every year, the (IPIC) hosts a national conference, welcoming IP lawyers from all over Canada to network and to learn from leaders in the field. This year, the leadership at IPIC worked hard to make sure that the annual conference was just as meaningful and successful as other years, despite the challenges they faced with the ongoing pandemic. I was fortunate enough to attend “” and I am excited to share some of the highlights of my experience.

Address by IPIC President, Stephanie Chong

The event began with an address from IPIC’s new President, , who emphasized that both COVID-19 and the social movements emerging internationally will have a major impact on the implementation of IPIC’s new three-year . Ms. Chong shared that IPIC is committed to working on tangible initiatives to increase equity, diversity and inclusion within the organization and in the IP profession at large.

Highlights

One of the highlights for me was the “Fireside Chat” with . He fielded questions regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the court system, whether courts should adopt an approach of technological neutrality or technological novelty, and whether Canada should have specialist judges for IP-related matters. He tackled these complex issues in stride and I really enjoyed listening to his perspective.

Another presentation that I particularly enjoyed was the Indigenous IP session. Professor of the University of Alberta shared a number of useful sources to learn more about Indigenous perspectives on IP. These include the and the project at Simon Fraser University. She also pointed to between Tsilhqot’in Nation and University of British Columbia, which, among other things, provides that Tsilhqot’in Nation will own any data that comes out of research done in collaboration with the University.

Following Professor Bell, reminded us that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit in IP law that could be fairly easily addressed by looking at other jurisdictions, similar to ours, which have regarding Indigenous rights in relation to IP.

CIPO

(CIPO) had a strong presence throughout the conference, providing practice updates for CIPO in general, but also for the patent and trademark branches, respectively. The CEO of CIPO, , emphasized that COVID-19 actually pushed the office to take measures that it had already been moving towards, such as the further digitalization of correspondence.

CIPO’s goal is to provide entirely digital correspondence in the future, and during this time, it has made strides towards that objective. Georgaras also pointed out that the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) and CIPO was a great resource during this time, which of course made me appreciate the , aptly named Isaac Pewton, for its value as well.

Other presentations during the conference covered such topics as the top IP cases of 2020, file wrapper estoppel, updates to section 56 of the Patent Act, site blocking, patentable subject matter of computer implemented inventions and copyright issues surrounding machine-generated works.

There were too many fascinating topics discussed this year to cover in one short blog, so the surest way not to miss out on stimulating discussions with leaders in IP law is to register for next year’s conference. IPIC plans to hold its next annual conference in Newfoundland next October.

Acknowledgment

I want to thank IPIC for allowing me to attend the conference on behalf of the IPilogue. It was a wonderful experience, and I highly recommend that students who are able to become members of IPIC do so. There is a , and financial aid available for those who qualify. I have found it to be a welcoming and supportive community, and I hope that all who are interested in practicing IP law get a chance to experience it for themselves!

Written by Rachel Marcus. Rachel is a third year student at Osgoode Hall Law School and is currently enrolled in Professors D’Agostino and Vaver 2020/2021 IP & Technology Law Intensive Program at Osgoode Hall Law School. Rachel has been a member of IPIC since 2018 and is currently a part of the IPIC Mentorship Program.

The post Recap of IPIC2020 Virtual: Emerging Trends in IP - What Does The Future Hold? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

What is an innovation box?

An innovation box is an that reduces the tax rate for corporate income generated from patented inventions or, in some cases, other intellectual property developed in Canada.

The term “innovation box” that a qualifying corporation can simply check off the box on its tax forms. The rate of tax reduction is country-dependent.

, the innovation box is supposed to boost domestic innovation and encourage multinational organizations to spend research and development dollars in the country offering the innovation box. Ideally, it boosts capital investment within the country and creates employment opportunities.

International use of innovation boxes

have adopted their own versions of the innovation box, including Switzerland, Italy and Belgium, to name a few. This has allowed researchers to study just how effective this IP policy is.

A recent found that in countries with an innovation box, two major policy objectives were achieved. First, there was reduced shifting of income outside the jurisdiction, since “an innovation box regime effectively reduces the applicable tax rate on a portion of reported income”. Therefore, income had to be generated and kept within the country for the tax reduction to be applied. Second, there was increased capital expenditure and employment within the country.

The study looked at values from the period before the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) announced new international guidelines regarding innovation boxes.

The OECD wanted the full benefits of this kind of tax incentive to materialize, as well as to protect against tax fraud. Given this, OECD published the . of the BEPS outlines certain requirements that corporations must meet to qualify.

Among others, Action 5 includes a requirement to show substantial economic presence in the country in which you are filing, as well as a requirement to show proof of IP ownership. These protective standards will only serve to solidify the benefits countries receive in return for implementing innovation box tax reductions.

Is a tax reduction too generous?

One might ask, however, why corporations should get a tax reduction when IP rights themselves are theoretically the incentive to innovate. An article states, “Traditionally, the economic rationale for granting intellectual property rights in innovations has been that the rights provide an incentive or reward for the sizeable investments needed to create the intellectual property disclosed in the patent document”. So, is providing yet another benefit to potential innovators overly generous?

The fact is, IP protection and innovation boxes serve two distinct functions. While it may be that IP protection is sufficient to encourage innovation, the tax incentive would encourage innovation within Canada. With 20 other countries providing an innovation box, Canada risks losing innovative activities to those countries that do ease the tax burden. The tax reduction is not meant to be a fair return on the investment of labour, but a strategic economic play.

Conclusion

If Canada offers an innovation box, Canadian companies will be incentivized to invest domestically and multinational entities may be incentivized to prioritize innovation in Canada as well. In this way, Canada can boost the economy and generate employment opportunities, as we try to recover from the economic impacts of COVID-19.

Written by Rachel Marcus. Rachel is in her third year at Osgoode Hall Law School. She is a regular contributor to the IPilogue, and is currently enrolled in Professors D’Agostino and Vaver 2020/2021 IP & Technology Law Intensive Program at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Thinking Inside the Box is Key to Economic Recovery appeared first on IPOsgoode.

states that a mark is registrable if it is not a sign or combination of signs whose adoption is prohibited by section 9 or section 10. In turn, states that “no person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trademark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for ... any scandalous, obscene or immoral word or device.”

According to the a scandalous trademark is something that is offensive to a societal or individual sense of propriety or morality, or which is a slur on nationality and generally regarded as offensive. It is something that causes general outrage or indignation.

The United States used to have a similar prohibition known as the disparagement clause (Lanham Act, 15 USC s. 1052(a)), but it was declared unconstitutional in because of its impact on freedom of expression. Tam wanted to call his band “The Slants”, and in doing so “take back” a word that had previously been used against people of Asian descent. After his win in the US Supreme Court, Tam explained that in part because they help stimulate discussion around racism.

Despite Tam’s initial motivations, there is no denying that there have been negative consequences of the Matal v Tam decision. In the United States, anyone is now able to use offensive marks, not only those who are trying to “take back” offensive words. For example, prior to Matal v Tam, the Washington Redskins football team of its trademarks because they violated the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause.

When the Court recognized Tam’s right to “take back” a racial slur, it also handed every other American organization and individual the same opportunity to use racial slurs and derogatory images as trademarks. The Washington Redskins were suddenly free to register their name and logo. Shortly after, in , 139 S. Ct. 2294, the Court struck down the remaining restrictions in the Lanham Act that prohibited the registration of immoral or scandalous marks.

In Canada, freedom of expression arguments have yet to be argued in the trademarks context at the Supreme Court of Canada. That’s not to say that the argument hasn’t been put forward. In , Douglas Cardinal against Rogers. The Cleveland Indians were about to play in what was then the Rogers Centre, and the injunction aimed to (1) prevent Rogers from broadcasting the Cleveland Indians logo, (2) to prevent the team from wearing their regular jerseys, and (3) to have announcers refer to the team only as “The Cleveland Team”. However, because the injunction was brought only hours before the game, the court ruled that the balance of convenience fell in Rogers’ favour. Still, the court did conclude that the relevance of freedom of expression, a defence brought forward by Rogers, constituted a serious issue to be tried.

One can only hope that when \ freedom of expression arguments are argued fully in Canada, the courts will see what has happened in the United States as a cautionary tale. Taking a strong position against the registration of scandalous marks is more important than protecting companies’ rights to use offensive language and images. Nobody should be subjected to blatant discrimination every time they flip on the television or walk down a grocery store aisle.

This blog was written by Rachel Marcus. Rachel is going into her third year at Osgoode Hall Law School. She is an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow and part of the IP Intensive Program.

The post Discriminatory trademarks have no place on the register appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Recently, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made an announcement that Federal Government would be supplying Merit Functional Foods with an interest-free $10 million loan through . is a Canadian company that manufactures high-quality plant-based proteins, such as pea protein and canola protein, using Canadian crops. The $10 million loan brings the project’s total government backing to , which Merit plans to use towards completing its state-of-the-art, 94,000 square foot . The facility is scheduled for completion by the end of 2020.

The project was partly funded by , which aims to accelerate the commercialization of innovating technologies that increase Canadian agriculture’s competitiveness and sustainability. Project applications are prioritized based on whether they advance the government’s agenda in particular areas, one of those being the adoption of “world leading clean technology.”

While it’s unclear if the Merit project was prioritized through its classification as clean technology, it is clear based on the scientific record that an investment in plant-based food science is an investment in such technology.

Background on the Plant-Based Movement

As someone who grew up in a vegetarian household, I was highly aware of the early phases of the plant-based movement in North America. was an important book in our family, brought down from the bookshelf every few months for re-examination.

Recently, however, plant-based foods have been gaining popularity at an unprecedented rate. It’s not exactly clear what led to this change, but easy access to documentaries like on Netflix and support from celebrities through things like Beyonce’s certainly didn’t hurt.

Today, some might say the final frontier has been reached: the fast food industry. There has been a major rollout of across McDonald’s, A&W, Wendy’s, and KFC. Even Maple Leaf Foods, a meat company, has introduced a , consisting of 50% meat and 50% plant-based protein, which the company says will help consumers “eat less meat, without giving it up all together.” With the number of US food and drink products using the words “plant-based” in their labelling , the plant-based movement is clearly gaining serious momentum.

The term refers to processes or products that improve environmental outcomes, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, land degradation, and water and air pollution. Innovative plant-based foods, their chemical makeups, and their manufacturing processes fall into this category, because they reduce or eliminate the environmental impacts of meat consumption.

The Environmental Impact of Meat Consumption

The meat industry is in four specific ways: (1) emission of greenhouse gases; (2) acidification and eutrophication of the environment; (3) consumption of natural resources, in particular energy and water; and (4) pollution from animal waste and waste water discharge.

In 2006, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations published on the various environmental impacts of livestock production. Some key statistics include:

• The total area dedicated to livestock feed crop production is 33% of total arable land
• The livestock sector is the largest anthropogenic user of land, taking up 26% of all ice-free terrestrial surface
• Deforestation and other land use changes emit 2.4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year
• The livestock sector is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions
• On-farm fossil fuel use may emit up to of CO2 per year
• The livestock sector is responsible for 64% of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain
• The meat industry is the largest sectoral source of water pollution, responsible for ⅓ of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads in freshwater resources in the US, as well as heavy metals, pathogens and drug residues
• Livestock require an enormous amount of water. For poultry, it’s highest, at an estimated and for dairy, it’s .

This and other evidence led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to recommend dietary changes in its in 2016. The Report suggests that diets featuring plant-based foods “present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation ... By 2050, dietary changes could free several million km of land and provide a technical mitigation potential of 0.7 to 8.0 GtCO2eq (), relative to business as usual projections.” Clearly, innovative plant-based food production is clean technology worth investing in.

Of course, plant-based foods come with their own problems (think monocultures, , for example). However, if individuals choose their plant-based options wisely, and the government continues to support research and development in the plant-based food industry, the availability of innovative plant-based foods may have a significant impact on the environment.

It’s exciting to see the Canadian government investing in clean technology through a variety of channels, including through agricultural innovation. It shows that Canada is serious about investing in the health and economic prosperity of its citizens by providing jobs, keeping the supply chain within Canada, and protecting our environment.

Written by Rachel Marcus. Rachel is going into her third year at Osgoode Hall Law School. She is a Fellow with the IP Osgoode Innovation Clinic, and a student in the IP and Technology Law Intensive.

The post Plant-Based Protein: The Government’s Latest Investment in Clean Technology appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Attendees were reminded of this by Professor Dov Greenbaum on Monday, June 22nd, 2020, when IP Osgoode hosted “Bracing for Impact III: Emerging Technologies”. The virtual conference was the third in a series of speaking engagements in partnership between IP Osgoode, Microsoft, and IDC Herzliya. The discussion centred around the legal and ethical challenges surrounding COVID-19 contact tracing and was moderated by Professor Pina D’Agostino and Doctor Aviv Gaon. The full list of speakers and their bios can be found . The following is a summary of the discussion that took place.

What is Contact Tracing?

Contact tracing is a public health measure for reducing the spread of communicable diseases. It has been implemented for hundreds of years, and in essence, aims to temporarily remove carriers of a disease from society in order to reduce the disease’s spread. Manual contact tracing is initiated when an individual tests positive, and tracks only the infected individual and their known contacts.

However, in the time of COVID-19, during which John Weigelt, National Technology Officer for Microsoft Canada, says two years of innovation has occurred within two months, digital contact tracing is now possible. Applications for digital contact tracing differ from traditional contact tracing as tracing occurs constantly, creating a technological record of a person’s daily contacts, regardless of whether they ever test positive.

App Varieties

Professor Teresa Scassa enumerated three basic metrics that differentiate apps. These include the type of technology, the level of data centralization, and the voluntariness of use. You can read about examples of national apps that fall across the spectrum on each of these metrics and .

An example on the far end of the spectrum for each of these metrics is the early contact tracing effort in Israel. Professor Dov Greenbaum explained the early deployment of contact tracing in Israel, through Shabak (aka the Shin Bet), the country’s internal security department. Initial efforts saw Shabak analyzing information collected by cell phones and other sources, including records of purchases, to trace people’s movements and interactions. This was a centralized model as the information was accessible to Israel’s public health authority. Affected individuals would, without knowing they were being tracked, receive an instruction to self-quarantine.

Given its intrusive nature, this approach was the subject of domestically and internationally. As a result, the government has moved to a less intrusive approach, involving GPS-based contact tracing. However, Professor Greenbaum noted that Israel has a large population of people who do not use smartphones. As a recent discovered, at least 60% of the population must use contact tracing apps for them to be effective. Therefore, there is some concern that the new Israeli approach will not be effective, and that the government may shift back to the original, and far more intrusive, approach.

In contrast to Israel’s early approach, the has emerged as a dominant model off of which to build contact tracing apps. It leans towards the most privacy preserving of each metric, collecting only Bluetooth proximity data, storing personal information locally, and remaining voluntary. The Google-Apple API is what Canada’s national app is built upon. The app will be , beginning in July 2020.

Ethical Concerns and Trust

Currently, there is no legislation in place that specifically governs data collection from contact tracing apps. Doctor Ian Stedman advised that a robust governance framework is in fact needed before contact tracing apps can be implemented.

Without a clear statement of the purposes behind contact tracing, and without accountability measures in place to ensure transparency and purpose limitation, large sectors of the population will lack trust in these apps. Without widespread trust, contact tracing apps will not be able to attract enough users to make them effective. Therefore, governance framework must provide a backstop to data collection, retention, and use. Stakeholders, including those from the most , should be consulted in the drafting of this governance framework.

AI and Contact Tracing

Carole Piovesan, Partner and Co-founder of INQ Data Law, shone a spotlight on Toronto-based AI companies and their efforts before, during, and after the pandemic. For example, Toronto-based AI company BlueDot predicted the spread of COVID-19 as early as December 2018, and . You can hear about the early prediction from BlueDot founder and University of Toronto professor Kamran Khan .

Other important uses for AI during this time include drones for patient sample and medical supply transport, predictive modeling to ensure hospitals are prepared for the next influx of patients, as well as targeted communications and active filtering out of disinformation on social media sites.

Moving Forward

It appears that COVID-19 will be central to any decision making within the foreseeable future. While there should be efforts to develop and improve technological tools, these efforts should go hand in hand with improvements to manual solutions like COVID-19 testing.

As we move forward, there will be many more discussions, including those in the private sector, as companies start to move their workforce back into communal environments. While elements of these discussions have already been had, it has always been in the context of some far-off future. Now, all of a sudden, we have a pressing reason to dig into these complex topics and come to workable solutions that align with our values as a society as soon as possible.

If you found this event interesting, for the Bracing for Impact Webinar Series in the Fall.

Written by Rachel Marcus. Rachel is going into her third year at Osgoode Hall Law School. She is a Fellow with the IP Osgoode Innovation Clinic, and a student in the IP and Technology Law Intensive.

The post Reflections on Bracing for Impact III - COVID-19 Contact Tracing: Legal and Ethical Challenges appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Traditional Board Games Moving Online

In this extended period where many of us are housebound, board games are a nice reprieve from social isolation. We are able to play games with our friends over drinks and snacks, from the convenience of our own homes.

One of my favourite board games before social isolation began was , created by (CGE). It is a popular game that is distributed internationally in a variety of languages, and it has won a number of awards, including the Mensa Select Award.

So, as you can imagine, when social isolation was recommended, I looked for an online version of Codenames that would still allow me to have fun with friends and family. My initial search engine results for “codenames online” showed the link to the unfortunately named , as well as , and . All of these appear to be knock-off online versions of the official version, most of which prominently displayed the word “codenames” on their sites.

CGE was slow to adapt to the current need for online games, so they only recently launched an of the game. If they had popped up in my search engine results the first time I went looking, I definitely would have chosen to use their platform.

Potential Harm

Loss of Distinctiveness

of the Trademarks Act says that the registration of a trademark is invalid if it is not distinctive at the time that legal proceedings take place.

Trademarks can lose distinctiveness if they are not policed. If a trademark is associated with more than one product in consumers’ minds, or worse, if a trademark becomes the generic name for a given type of board or card game, then the original trademark owner risks having the registration declared invalid.

The lack of distinctiveness becomes a liability if a third party wants to clear the register to make way for their new, similar trademark. It can also become a problem if the original trademark owner decides to assert their rights, because the mark’s lack of distinctiveness makes it vulnerable to a declaration of invalidity via a counterclaim.

Trademark owners should actively police their trademarks during this time in order to avoid loss of distinctiveness. Owners should be aware that people are looking for things to do online during this period of self-isolation, and that means that opportunists are more likely to create knock-off versions of popular games.

Depreciation of Goodwill

A lot of popular board and card games, like , , or have registered trademarks in Canada. However, Codenames does not.

Registered or not, trademark owners should be concerned and potentially take action if other actors are depreciating the  goodwill associated with the trademark. Section 22 of the Trademarks Act states that “No person shall use a trademark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching thereto.”

Copyright Infringement

If there are knock-off games that appear to copy a well-known game’s artwork or style contrary to of the Copyright Act, a game owner may consider enforcing its copyright.

An Ounce of Prevention...

In order to pre-empt knock-offs, board game companies should act quickly to get their games online so that people will use their official site, rather than looking for a close alternative. This may mean licensing a registered trademark to an online game platform that can get the game up and running quickly, or working within the company to share the game online.

While companies may have to offer these online games for free in the short-term, a company’s IP is an important asset to protect in the long term.

Written by Rachel Marcus, IPilogue Contributing Editor. Rachel is going into her third year at Osgoode Hall Law School, and she is also an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow.

The post Not All Fun And (Board) Games appeared first on IPOsgoode.

When Canadians were first ordered to self-isolate, the IPilogue published a on the use of contact tracing apps in China that reviewed how useful the apps were in controlling the pandemic, despite the privacy concerns that they raised. However, as China sees of outbreaks, it’s worth reevaluating how much privacy Canadians are willing to give up for an imperfect system.

What is Contact Tracing?

Contact tracing is a method of tracking a disease’s spread by monitoring social contacts. The hope is that accurate contact tracing will allow people to return to their daily activities, and kickstart the economy sooner rather than later.

In order for a contact tracing app to be effective at stopping the spread of COVID, has to use the app, including seniors who may not have smartphones. Users would also have to be honest and accurate about their symptoms.

How Would These Apps Work?

There are different models under development in different countries. The basic premise underlying all of them is that once a person either confirms that they have COVID symptoms or actually tests positive for COVID, anyone they have been in contact with recently is notified and told to isolate.

In China, people are simply denied the ability to leave their homes until they prove to be asymptomatic. However, in a country like Canada, the success of a contact tracing app would rely on symptomatic or COVID-positive users being voluntarily agreeable and capable of quarantining.

Despite the technological capabilities of these apps, it should be noted that the solution they prescribe when someone is ill or exposed is exactly the solution that is already in place— social isolation. At this point, nothing is safer than following strict social isolation protocol.

Contact Tracing in the United Kingdom

The is the technology arm of the UK’s National Health Services (NHS). It is currently running a trial of a contact tracing app on the Isle of Wight to determine its broader utility throughout the UK.

The UK’s app is highly centralized, in that it collects data and analyzes it as a whole to find patterns and make predictions. A recent by Ian Levy, the Technical Director of the National Cyber Security Center, explains why the UK opted for a centralized model. Such a model allows the NHS to implement measures to protect the population in general rather than just individuals, and to learn more about how COVID is transmitted. It also allows the NHS to make improvements to the app more easily.

The UK model relies on self-reporting of symptoms. If a person who reports having symptoms of COVID has a high calculated risk factor, they may be ordered to take a COVID test.

The only information the UK app stores is the user’s anonymous identification number, and their “postcode district,” which is shared by thousands of households. In terms of privacy, the says that the app is specifically designed with privacy in mind, and that users will always stay anonymous, with their data only being used for contact tracing purposes. You can read more about the app on the informational the UK has set up.

One explanation for why this model has been chosen is that closed circuit video is in the UK than in North America, largely due to concerns about terrorism and crime. Perhaps this makes British citizens more comfortable with giving up aspects of their privacy in favour of public safety. It may be less likely to be accepted in North America.

Contact Tracing in Germany

Germany looks like it will be taking a far more approach to contact tracing than the UK. German citizens are highly protective of their privacy rights, and designing the structure of an app has been the subject of public debate.

The proposed German app keeps all a user’s information and data on the user’s phone. If they actually test positive for COVID, their recent contacts are alerted. There is no self-reporting option in the German model, which proponents say will reduce false alarms and unnecessary panic.

However, this model is completely reliant on fast and accurate testing, something that not every country has access to. Germany can afford to implement this model because it currently has the fastest rate of testing in Europe, pumping out tests for .

Contact Tracing in Canada

Currently, contact tracing apps have been voluntarily developed by provinces and private partners, though on May 19th that they may soon be putting forward a federal framework.

Alberta has already launched its , based on a centralized model, through a partnership with Deloitte. The app only provides the provincial health service with the user’s phone number and duration of exposure to other users who have been identified as high-risk for transmitting COVID. The app does not use GPS to track users’ locations. Instead, it uses Bluetooth technology to record the duration of the contact between users. A user’s data is deleted every 21 days.

While provincial contact tracing is not in full effect in Quebec or Ontario, it appears to be an with apps already and . One Montreal-based app, “COVI”, hopes to be the app chosen by the provinces’ health authorities. COVI’s creators describe the app as being similar to the UK model, and specifically mention that health authorities will be able to intervene in a targeted manner based on aggregate data if they identify a problematic pattern of infections.

The personal information COVI would gather is significant and includes data such as age, sex, existing medical conditions, and risk factors like whether a user takes public transit. COVI would not ask for users’ emails, names, or phone numbers.

Conclusion

COVID has required countries to decide very quickly where their values lie. The question is whether Canadians will be tolerant of giving up some privacy in order for the government to track COVID more effectively, or whether we will grip tightly onto our privacy rights and risk the downstream effects of a longer social isolation period.

Written by Rachel Marcus, IPilogue Contributing Editor. Rachel is going into her third year at Osgoode Hall Law School, and she is also an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow.

The post Where Have You Been? Canada Wants to Know appeared first on IPOsgoode.

What is Sidewalk Labs?

Sidewalk Labs is a company run by Alphabet, Google’s parent company. In 2017, Waterfront Toronto launched a request for proposals to develop the Quayside area, and Sidewalk Labs was announced as the successful applicant that same year. Since then, there have been a number of plans and amendments submitted by Sidewalk Labs, and a number of public consultations and setbacks to the project, which will be discussed later in this blog. You can find a full timeline of the project .

Sidewalk Labs states that its is to improve urban life on many levels, including sustainability and mobility, by developing cutting-edge technology and design. Many of the anticipated improvements in urban life are reliant on heavy surveillance and data collection, including virtually all aspects of resident and visitor behaviour.

Pulling out of the Project

On May 7th, 2020, Sidewalk Labs that it was withdrawing from the planned development project due to worldwide economic uncertainty and uncertainty in the Toronto real estate market. In terms of moving forward, CEO Daniel Doctoroff stated that he believes the companies that have already been launched or funded in preparation for the Quayside will still be useful tools for solving many modern-day urban problems. For example, , a robotic furniture company, provides innovative solutions to cramped condo living. A team of architects designed , which are more environmentally friendly than steel and concrete building materials. Theoretically, either of these technologies, as well as the others that were funded or devised by Sidewalk Labs, could be applied in other urban areas, or even in Toronto.

Meanwhile, in his on the matter, Waterfront Toronto’s Board Chair Stephen Diamond explained that while this is not the outcome the city had hoped for, he maintains that Quayside still presents a wonderful opportunity for any partner organization to explore innovative solutions to urban problems.

One has to wonder if Alphabet used the economic and societal upheaval caused by COVID-19 as an excuse to pull out of a project that was already mired with controversy and setbacks.

Controversy and Setbacks

Privacy Concerns

One of the major hurdles that Sidewalk Labs faced was privacy. In late 2018, former Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian as a privacy consultant for Sidewalk Labs. She specifically advocated for stripping data of all personally identifiable details because in a smart city like Sidewalk Labs, there would be no way for individuals to provide consent to the collection of personal information, especially in public areas. When she learned that Sidewalk Labs would not mandate data de-identification, she felt she had to resign.

Then, in 2019, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) filed a of Waterfront Toronto’s approval of Sidewalk Labs’ design plan. The CCLA sought a declaration under of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) that Waterfront Toronto violated, or was going to violate, Canadians’ personal and collective privacy rights under ss., , and of the Charter. The Notice of Application for Judicial Review cites concerns with Waterfront Toronto’s inexperience with data governance structures, as well as violations of the in the collection and use of individuals’ personal information.

Indigenous Consultations

Sidewalk Labs held a one-day Indigenous consultation session in 2018, which resulted in 14 recommendations. None of these recommendations were incorporated into the design plan. of Alphabet’s approach say that references to Indigenous perspectives are scattered throughout Sidewalk Labs’ plans and website, but that meaningful Indigenous involvement or presence in the proposed community is non-existent.

Conclusion

Regardless of whether Alphabet was motivated by the economic uncertainties of today, or whether it was already looking for an excuse to withdraw from the project due to multiple setbacks and unexpected pushback from the community, Toronto will have to sit back and watch as another city adopts this urban experiment.

Written by Rachel Marcus, IPilogue Contributing Editor. Rachel is going into her third year at Osgoode Hall Law School, and she is also an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow.

The post Sidewalk Labs Withdraws from Quayside Development Project appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Today, with easy access to delivery services, environmentally friendly packaging is an important consideration for many companies and purchasers. There are several aspects of packaging to think about when trying to decrease its environmental impact, including the packaging itself, the emissions required to ship it, and the energy and raw materials that go into its manufacture.

The Packaging Itself

Packaging may be biodegradable, compostable, recyclable, or none of the above. Containers and packaging account for of waste in the US (up from 27 million tons in 1960), which is about 30% of all total solid waste in the country. Now, we’re starting to see new solutions to divert waste from landfills; many of these solutions are 100% biodegradable. For example, is made completely of mushrooms and can be molded for various products.

The Emissions Used in Shipping

While the downside of plastic is highly publicized, one advantage of plastic packaging is its lightweight quality. Plastic is one of the lightest packaging materials, lighter than its heavier glass and paper alternatives. That means it and produces fewer emissions when it is eventually destroyed.

Packaging weight is particularly important in specific industries, like the wine industry. of American wine is produced on the West Coast, and then shipped to the East Coast where a majority of wine consumers live. Half the weight of an ordinary case of wine comes from the bottles. In contrast, in a case of boxed wine, of the weight comes from the boxes. So, if wine manufacturers shift from bottled to boxed wine, that the resulting reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be the equivalent of removing from the roads.

The Energy and Materials Required to Manufacture Packaging

To make environmentally friendly packaging, a company has to take into account the quantity of raw materials, and the that go into manufacturing the packaging. Some companies have taken huge steps towards reducing their packaging’s impact. For example, Puma’s has replaced its shoeboxes, and uses 60% less energy and water to produce. It saves 8, 500 tons of paper, 20 million megajoules of electricity, 1 million litres of water and 10,000 tons of carbon emissions per year.

Ways to Protect IP Rights in Environmentally Friendly Packaging

Puma’s Clever Little Bag also required the design team to brainstorm around 2,000 ideas over the course of nearly two years before arriving at the final design. In order to protect companies’ investments in their products and incentivize companies to innovate for a green future, IP law can step in and protect packaging in various ways.

Trademarks

With the recent amendments to the (the Act), distinguishing guises are no longer protected as a discrete category of trademarks. However, the new definition of a trademark under section 2 of the Act still covers modes of packaging. Of course, a company cannot protect its mode of packaging if its function is primarily utilitarian (s.12(2) of the Act) if having a monopoly over that mode of packaging will limit the development of an art or industry (s.18.1 of the Act).

Companies can also trademark different aspects of their packaging, such as a specific texture or the colour of the packaging. As always, the name of the business can be protected by trademark law to allow the business to grow, and potentially license its trademark once protection is obtained to ensure the widespread use of its eco-friendly packaging and products.

Copyright

Copyright law can protect specific artwork that appears on packaging, as well as thought-provoking artistic works that comment on our use of packaging. For example, there have been a few interactive art pieces that provide viewers with a visceral understanding of how much plastic consumers use each day. Some examples are this and this . Allowing artists to protect and even profit off these kinds of artistic statements allows the vision of a green future to proliferate around the world and encourages innovation in a direction away from wasteful packaging.

Industrial design

A company may also want to register its packaging as an industrial design. For example, the GE energy efficient lightbulb is packaged in a case that reduces the amount of packaging and processed materials needed to protect the bulb. The three-dimensional shape and configuration of this package may be eligible for registration as an industrial design, though it has yet to be registered. has over a thousand registrations under the search term “package,” so there is clearly ample opportunity to protect innovative, sustainable packaging designs.

Patents

Packages may not only be creatively designed, but its materials may be uniquely manufactured as well. For example, a company called Notpla has a that is currently pending for made from seaweed. Patents can protect novel packaging technologies or processes for manufacturing packaging that require less energy than standard processes. While there is some concern that patents prevent the proliferation of green innovation due to their monopolizing function, the time-limited protection allows inventors to gain back their initial investment and incentivizes others to invest in their own packaging technologies and manufacturing processes.

Hopefully, we will continue to see new ideas from companies and individuals who see a benefit in reducing the environmental impact of the packaging materials themselves, as well as the emissions and energy that go into manufacturing and shipping packaging. There are many ways IP law can support green innovation in this area and help to make a major impact on our future.

Written by Rachel Marcus, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. She is a guest contributor with the IPilogue.

The post Packaging is Prime Area for Delivering on Green Innovation appeared first on IPOsgoode.