Pankhuri Malik is an Osgoode LLM Graduate, IPilogue Writer and IP Innovation Clinic Fellow.

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

91��ɫ and IP Osgoode have been frontrunners in conversations surrounding AI since 2016, before it was cool. The Panel 2 discussion - “AI for the Future of Legal Practice – Self-Regulation, Access to Justice and the Importance of Legal Data” - is a prime example of the forward-thinking nature of the organizations, which seek to use their diverse and interdisciplinary structure to have well-rounded conversations about incorporating AI in legal practice.

The Panel discussed:

1. AI in law school curriculums;
2. AI as an aid to Access to Justice; and
3. The interplay between AI and Data.

Chaired by Osgoode Prof. Jonathon Penney, Panel 2 featured Sari Graben (Associate Dean at Lincoln Alexander School of Law, Toronto Metropolitan University), Nye Thomas (Executive Director, Law Commission of Ontario), Professor D’Agostino (who needs no introduction) and Ryan Wong (Osgoode Hall Law School alum and Associate at Smart & Biggar, Toronto).

Incorporation of AI in law school curriculums

Bringing her knowledge and experience in devising law school curricula to the table, discussed the delicate balance that must be achieved between law and technology in academics. She highlighted that due to AI’s evolving nature, the rapid pace of innovation in the space, and the lack of conversation between legal and technological experts, AI is a difficult subject to teach in law schools. Sari elucidated the need for innovative and critical thinking when approaching AI’s interplay with law.

Broadly, Sari discussed that to incorporate AI into the practice of law, we must first recognize that human involvement in legal decision-making traverses just a series of rules that must be applied uniformly to a situation in an automated manner.

Sari stated that human sensibilities, the feeling of being “heard,” and the trust placed by the public in a human authority figure who makes rational decisions are irreplaceable in legal practice. Using AI to crystallize a set of rules depersonalizes the law and isolates persons from the human element of justice.

Keeping these considerations in mind, Sari discussed that these challenges might be overcome by connecting technology and law, such that technically qualified and capable people become integral for implementing AI in law and in the use of law to regulate AI. Only dedicated persons actively working towards advancing the field can build a longstanding relationship between the two.

AI as an aid to Access to Justice

discussed the incorporation of AI in mitigating Canada’s prevailing Access to Justice crisis. To mitigate the challenges of a slow, expensive, and opaque system characterized by racial bias and unequal means to access the judiciary, Nye recommended promoting conversations around trustworthy and legal AI. Nye stated that AI-related policy needs to be developed as AI must be incorporated into the due process of law to increase transparency, reduce costs and implement a more uniform justice system.

Nye proposed that a primary tool for this would be the regulation of AI. He highlighted that not all systems that fall within the definition of AI impact society. Nye recommended devising a system to identify impactful AI and developing a regulatory system to monitor and implement it to ensure equal access and transparency for the public.

AI and data protection and ownership

Osgoode’s own discussed the need for different academic fields to come together for an interdisciplinary approach to AI. Prof. D’Agostino stressed the need for the university to lead the debate and conversation around interdisciplinary AI since different departments within the university are already working on various aspects of AI related innovation.

Prof. D’Agostino discussed the need to investigate AI-related data ownership. Through the IP Innovation Clinic, IP Osgoode has undercut 2 million dollars in IP-related services. And while offering pro-bono services to start-ups and individuals looking to grow their business through IP development, Prof. D’Agostino and her team have created a bank of commonly asked questions in the field of IP and developed the AI-driven .

, an Osgoode Alum and Associate at prominent IP Boutique firm Smart & Biggar, demonstrated how the ChatBot’s bank of intent-based questions provides free and instantaneous IP innovation information without the need for human intervention.

Key takeaways

Since its inception, AI has been received with scepticism. While some warn of it replacing humans, others are optimistic about the scope of innovation AI provides. This panel expressed optimism and presented a picture of AI technology combatting prevalent issues in legal practice.

In the debate about whether technology is new to the law or just another challenge that the law must overcome, the panellists gave me the impression that technology will be the law’s best friend in the coming years.��

The post Bracing for Impact – The Future of AI for Legal Practice appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Engin Akyurt ()

Prof. Pina D’Agostino is the Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, the IP Intensive Program, and the IP Innovation Clinic, the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the IPilogue, the Deputy Editor of the Intellectual Property Journal, and an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article features contributions from Ryan Wong (IP Osgoode & IP Innovation Clinic Alumnus), Sabrina Macklai (IPilogue Senior Editor), Tianchu Gao (IPilogue Writer), and Ashley Moniz (IPilogue Managing Editor).

2021 was an exciting year for the IPilogue. Our hard-working students and community members published more than twice as many articles than in 2020 and the most articles in a calendar year since 2011. This sharp increase helped us stay up to date with some of the biggest topics shaking up intellectual property: from , to ; and from growing investments in and , to IP registrars around the world grappling with whether to acknowledge ��as an inventor or artist. This article summarizes the top developments reported on our blog and in patents, trademarks, and copyright law in 2021. For a review of Privacy legislation in Canada, check out .

Top 10 Most Read IPilogue Articles Published in 2021

1. by Sabrina Macklai & Emily Chow
2. by Prof. David Vaver
3. by Claire Wortsman
4. By Claire Wortsman
5. by Natalie Bravo
6. by Prof. Giuseppina D’Agostino
7. by Bonnie Hassanzadeh
8. By Meena Alnajar
9. by Prof. David Vaver
10. by Bonnie Hassanzadeh

Introducing the College of Patent Agents & Trademark Agents

On , the came into force. The Act established the (‘’), an independent public interest regulator of patent and trademark agents in Canada. The purpose of the College is “to enhance the public’s ability to secure the rights provided under the and the .” The College’s responsibilities include maintaining professional competencies and ethics, issuing licences, collecting fees, and administering certification exams. This development marks a key milestone for the profession and for Canada’s . Though still in its infancy, the College has been criticized for and its , which may impose an additional fee on lawyer agents. It remains to be seen how influential the College is on the profession as it is expected to be fully operational within the next two years.

Patents

Overbreadth as an Independent Ground of Invalidity

On July 28, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed overbreadth as a standalone attack on patent validity: . In this case, the appellants argued that there is no statutory basis for overbreadth as a ground for invalidity. The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed and found that overbreadth can be supported by a combination of sections 27(3) and 27(4) of the Patent Act. Case law has often overlapped overbreadth with other grounds of invalidity such as obviousness, anticipation, and inutility.��

First Time Interpreting Patent Agent Privilege

Similar to solicitor-client privilege, patent agent privilege was introduced by section 16.1 of the Patent Act on June 24, 2016. The first case on patent agent privilege was decided this year: In this decision, the Federal Court provided some helpful commentary and analysis on the application and limitations of patent agent privilege.��

Patent Prosecution History Now Admissible as Evidence

In 2018, section 53.1 of the Patent Act was added to make patent prosecution history admissible as evidence in patent proceedings. This was a significant development as the Supreme Court of Canada had expressly rejected the idea and stated that admitting patent prosecution history “would undermine the public notice function of the claims, and increase uncertainty as well as fuelling the already overheated engines of patent litigation” (Free World Trust v Électro Santé Inc., 2000 SCC 66 at para. 66). Three subsequent Federal Court of Appeal decisions developed this provision further: ; ; and .��

Continued Debates over AI as an Inventor

Around the world, patent registrars grappled with patent applications that credit artificial intelligence software as the inventor. Dr. Stephen Thaler’s “DABUS” (Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) applied for patents around the world for its interlocking food containers. DABUS was granted patents in Australia and South Africa, with . In line with the and the , the disagreed, stating that absent express intention from Congress, the term “individual” in their statutory definition of “inventor” . The Supreme Court of Canada last considered the definition of "inventor" in 2002, but has yet to consider whether it would include non-human entities.

Trademark Law

Parody in Trademarks is No Joke

In , the Federal Court reaffirmed that parody is not a defence against trademark violation. Unlike the 2020 decision ), where the Federal Court failed to find the marks confusing, Justice McHaffie held there was a likelihood of confusion and passing off. This was based partly on the similarity of the trademarks and the overlap of the goods (both offering baked goods). However, even if the nature of the parties’ trades differ, trademark owners may still find recourse against spoofed versions of their marks through claiming depreciation of goodwill under section 22 of the . Here, the Court found goodwill in Subway’s trademarks, which was damaged by the nature of Budway’s products, as contrary to Subway’s “healthy and active” lifestyle promotion. With damages amounting to $40,000, it is clear the courts are unamused by parody in trademarks.

The Road Less Travelled Cannot be Trademarked

Like most countries, Canada bars the registration of “clearly descriptive” trademarks to prevent applicants from monopolizing words that merely describe the goods or services at hand. For this reason, marks consisting of are typically unregistrable. In , the Federal Court clarified when such marks might be protected. Hidden Bench and Locust Lane are two wineries operating on the same little road, “Locust Lane”. Although the Federal Court agreed that Hidden Bench met the threshold for a valid common law trademark over “Locust Lane”, they ultimately held that the mark, as clearly describing the goods and services’ place of origin, lacked both inherent and acquired distinctiveness. Therefore, Hidden Bench could not establish the necessary goodwill for a passing off claim. Only descriptive marks that have acquired a “secondary meaning” through use may warrant protection.

CIPO Addresses the Application Backlog

While filing trademarks is important for brand protection, the examination stage can take . In May, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) new measures to address the application backlog. Trademark owners may now file requests to expedite their examination where the registration of their mark is necessary for special circumstances such as if a Canadian court action involving the mark is expected or underway or if the goods or services are aimed at preventing, diagnosing, treating, or curing COVID-19. If accepted, the examination will take place within two weeks. The examination is also automatically expedited by approximately 6-10 months when the goods and services in the application are listed in CIPO’s . Though it is too early to assess the effect of these changes on mitigating the “”, the backlog of CIPO’s unexamined trademark applications appears to have as of December 13, 2021.

Push to Register Non-French Trademarks for Use in Quebec

Among the controversies associated with Quebec’s proposed Bill 96, , the bill stipulates new requirements for trademark owners operating in Quebec. Currently, under Quebec’s French-language laws, both registered and unregistered (i.e., common law) trademarks recognized under the may appear on public signs, posters, and commercial advertising in Quebec, in languages exclusively other than French. If enacted, Bill 96 would permit only registered non-French trademarks to appear on public signage, provided there is no corresponding registered French version of the mark. The Coalition Avenir Quebec government tabled Bill 96 on May 13, 2021, and Quebec’s National Assembly last examined it on December 10. Some iteration of the bill will likely become law by the end of this year. But even if it fails to pass, businesses relying on common law trademarks would be wise to try to register them, given the many that registration provides.��

Copyright Law

In 2021, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal heard 57 copyright infringement proceedings, approximately of all IP-related litigations at these levels.

Developments in Fair Dealing

The Copyright Act’s section 29 fair dealing provision, which allows for certain uses of copyright-protected materials, remained a central issue. affirmed that fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting (section 29.2 of the Act) must provide attribution, mentioning both the source and the name of the author. An indirect reference to the author accessible through “minimum research” is insufficient. As such, the Federal Court of Appeal rejected Trend Hunter’s argument that hyperlinking to the source article where Stross was credited was sufficient to meet the second requirement. The Court also declined to find fair dealing under s. 29 more broadly, considering that Trend Hunter’s dealing was commercial in nature, reproduced Stross’ work in its entirety, and that alternatives were available.

Fair dealing was once again at issue in , where the Federal Court held that the Conservative Party’s use of the CBC’s news footage of Liberal Party Leader and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during their 2019 election campaign did not infringe CBC’s copyright. The court undertook a large and liberal interpretation of fair dealing, finding that the Conservative Party’s use of CBC footage was for the purpose of criticism under s. 29.1.

91��ɫ achieved a in the copyright tariff dispute with the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (“Access Copyright”) in In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the interim tariff approved by the Copyright Board is not mandatory. Users can choose whether to accept licences or pursue alternative methods to lawfully copy works. Notably, this marked Justice Rosalie Abella’s final decision before her retirement from the Supreme Court of Canada. Throughout her tenure, and her judgement here provided helpful obiter regarding fair dealing as integral to users’ rights.

Even Fake Facts are Not Copyrightable

involves the alleged copyright infringement of the famous true-crime story The Black Donnellys. The book had always been presented and accepted as “.” The Federal Court ruled that “an author who publishes what is said to be a nonfiction historical account cannot later claim the account is actually fictional to avoid the principle that there is no copyright in facts.” Given today’s popularity of the phrase “based on a true story”, this ruling is a that there is no copyright in facts, even if they are later found to be untrue.

Copyright in Evolving Content Transmission

In , the Federal Court found the defendant liable for copyright infringement in its provision of pre-loaded set-top boxes and internet protocol television (IPTV) services and awarded the plaintiff nearly $30 million in damages. These services made copyrighted works owned by the plaintiff available to the public without the plaintiff’s permission. This decision marks the first time The court dealt with a similar issue in ). As IPTV is growing increasingly popular across the globe, its poses a challenge in Canada.

Availability of Reverse Class Actions for Copyright Infringement Claims

The first of its kind in Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal in affirmed that reverse class actions may be pursued in connection with copyright infringement claims. Though the matter was sent back to the Federal Court for further consideration, this judgement may encourage and enable mass copyright enforcement in the future, especially in our digital age where copyright infringement is more commonplace.

Public Consultations Ahead of 2022’s Copyright Reform

As part of the (CUSMA), which came into force on July 1, 2020, Canada has until the end of 2022 to implement numerous changes to their domestic copyright laws; most notably, extending the general term of copyright protection from . In light of the upcoming legislative amendments, the Government of Canada hosted three public copyright consultations in 2021:

• ;
• ; and

With the consultations now closed, it will be interesting to see how Canadian copyright laws will change in 2022 to accord not only with international obligations but our ever evolving digital world and public attitudes surrounding copyright laws.

The post 2021 IP Year in Review appeared first on IPOsgoode.

IP Osgoode is pleased to announce the award of the IP Osgoode David Vaver Medal for Excellence in IP to Ryan Wong.

IP Osgoode founded this , presented yearly during Osgoode convocation to mark Prof. David Vaver’s  for his leadership in intellectual property as “a scholar and mentor”.

The medal, befitting of Prof. Vaver’s influence on intellectual property law, is an original piece of artwork created by Toronto-based artist, . IP Osgoode awards the medal yearly to an Osgoode student in the graduating class who merits special recognition for outstanding achievements in the area of intellectual property law. Importantly, the student’s achievements extend beyond academic excellence, and can include significant contributions to research in intellectual property and related areas or exceptional commitment and enthusiasm through their participation in intellectual property-related extra-curricular activities.

Over the past 3 years, Ryan Wong has been a star student. He has been actively involved in all of IP Osgoode’s programs. He served as an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow before being hired as a Clinic Co-ordinator. He has also worked as a Research Assistant to Prof D’Agostino for the past 2 years and dedicated many hours to building the IP Innovation ChatBot with our team from Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP. In this past year’s IP Intensive course, he received glowing feedback both for his final paper and for his work with ISED Canada’s Performance and Partnerships division, who hired him back to work part time for ISED as a Junior Policy Analyst while completing his 3L year.

Ryan has also regularly submitted articles to the IPilogue as a Guest Writer. His articles included “”, “”, “” (for the IP Intensive Course), “”, and “”. For this last piece, Ryan was awarded the Gowling WLG Prize for Best Blog for the Winter 2020 term. And while he has completed law school, Ryan continues to help improve the ChatBot and work as Senior Editor for the Intellectual Property Journal.

There is no one more deserving of this medal epitomizing the true values of the IP Osgoode David Vaver Medal for Excellence in Intellectual Property Law. Congratulations to Ryan and wishing him every success in his career in IP!

The post Congratulations to Ryan Wong on Receiving the IP Osgoode David Vaver Medal for Excellence in Intellectual Property! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

IP Osgoode is pleased to announce that Ryan Wong is the new Senior Editor for the Intellectual Property Journal (IPJ). Ryan recently graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School and will be starting his articling with Smart & Biggar LLP this summer. Ryan previously acted as a Clinic Coordinator with the IP Innovation Clinic.

The IPJ is Canada’s leading peer-reviewed journal with a focus on IP law related areas such as patents, trademarks, copyright, designs, trade secrets and competitive torts.�� Leading the IPJ’s editorial team is Editor-in-Chief, Pina D’Agostino, an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and IP Osgoode’s founder and director, and Deputy Editor Dr. Aviv Gaon, Director of Experimental Programs at IDC Herzliya.

The IPJ editorial team wishes to thank Prof. David Vaver, IPJ’s founder, for his mentorship and unrelenting support.�� The IPJ’s continued success is made possible by the contributions from its panel of expert reviewers.��

The post Carswell’s Intellectual Property Journal appoints Ryan Wong as Senior Editor appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The IP CoE was established as part of the National IP strategy. The team represents a significant step forward for Canada and the value the government has placed on improving the IP culture with the Canadian public and within the federal government. The focus of the IP CoE is to provide strategic IP advice to government program designs and policies, develop best practices, perform data analysis on IP trends and approaches, and promote awareness on common IP issues. I was excited and encouraged to learn the systematic approach that the IP CoE team is taking in order to promote as part of improving the IP regime in Canada.

My work with the IP CoE offered a unique experience that helped me understand the current IP issues from the Canadian government’s perspective. IP plays an important role in the success of Canadian businesses – from growing the economy and creating jobs in Canada to helping Canadian businesses establish a competitive advantage in the international marketplace. The meetings I’ve attended provided an inside look into what Canada has done and how the Canadian government plans to pursue its stated goals under the national IP strategy.

The placement experience gave further insight into how the government operates internally. Following the on September 23, 2020, I attended a series of meetings that parsed through how the contents of the speech impacted the department’s work going forward. Throughout the placement, I was also reminded that my work products will be reported to senior officials and impact IP culture in Canada. The significance of the work I was part of made the experience even more meaningful.

COVID-19 has had a large impact on all aspects of life and the IP Intensive placement was no exception. Despite this, my placement experience adapted well to the new reality. I was able to work virtually from home in Toronto with the IP CoE team residing primarily in Ottawa. We had periodic working-level meetings to keep the team updated on each of our work assignments. I was in constant communication with my supervisors as well. Although I never got to meet the team in-person or experience working and living in Ottawa, I was warmly welcomed by the team and seamlessly integrated.

Overall, I had a wonderful experience with the IP CoE and would recommend the placement to anyone interested in learning about IP from a government’s point of view. I got a glimpse of what it’s like to work for the government and met incredible people along the way. I feel strongly that this experience will serve to benefit my professional development as I pursue a career in IP law.

I want to thank everyone at ISED, especially the IP CoE team, for making my experience so memorable. I also want to take this moment to thank everyone at IP Osgoode for this unique opportunity and for all the work they put in to make the placement possible despite the COVID- 19 pandemic. IP Osgoode is best described as an opportunity that keeps on giving. My placement has offered me a part-time position, which I started in January 2021. I am very grateful to have been able to rejoin the IP CoE team this semester and continue my placement work with them.

Written by Ryan Wong, JD Candidate 2021, enrolled in Professors D’Agostino and Vaver's 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 Experiencing IP at the National Level (IP Intensive Reflection) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On April 26, 2021, the theme of World IP Day 2021 is “”. Since I founded the IP Innovation Clinic in 2010, the Clinic has helped countless innovators, entrepreneurs, and small businesses to do exactly that. Our students have provided basic legal information to clients who otherwise would not have any access to it. To date, the Clinic has subsidized over $2,000,000CDN of legal fees that would otherwise have been paid by those without access to resources. This past year, the Clinic has expanded its impact through the recently launched , a free legal chatbot which uses a vast database of credible IP information to answer users’ initial IP questions and guide them to the type of legal help they need. This is only the beginning of the ChatBot’s story.

In a critical time of Covid-19 isolation, I aim to ensure that the IP Innovation ChatBot’s content is accessible and attuned to the unique realities of underrepresented communities in Canada’s intellectual property (IP) innovation ecosystem; namely, women and indigenous peoples. Having assisted clients in these underrepresented groups in the IP Innovation Clinic, and through my own research and writing in this area, I have seen first-hand the distinct struggles these groups confront in the traditional IP innovation ecosystem and the distinct challenges they face to bring their innovations to society; from being silenced in their ideation phase to lacking adequate resources and know-how to develop IP strategies attuned to their unique needs and perspectives.

This AI-powered initiative has been launched thanks to the Canadian government’s , and supports its mandate to increase IP awareness and education by making IP information more accessible. These learnings can easily be applied to other areas of the law.

The ChatBot has been realized due to visionary IP Innovation Clinic champions backing our work, Innovation 91��ɫ at 91��ɫ, Ontario Centre of Innovation (OCI) at the very outset and Bergeron Entrepreneurs Science and Technology (BEST) Program at Lassonde School of Engineering and Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) Canada LLP. Indeed, the technical and legal expertise of Partner, Maya Medeiros, and Al Hounsell at NRF, and our Osgoode JD team of students led by Ryan Wong, class of 2021. It is also an honour to work closely with other leaders in the federal government such as the Konstantinos Georgaras, CEO (Interim) at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) and Jennifer Miller, Erin Campbell and their teams at Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED), who understand and work hard to overcome the challenges Canadian innovators face.

I previously uncovered the various challenges that underrepresented communities face in the IP innovation system and how grassroots initiatives, such as IP legal clinics, can assist in and in more recent work to use the power of artificial intelligence (AI) to build an IP Innovation ChatBot to make IP law more accessible. Going forward, I plan to expand on this foundational and empirical work to build the IP Innovation Clinic and the ChatBot to make the IP innovation ecosystem more accessible.

Ultimately, in an era of increasing technological disruption and lingering societal inequality and pandemic isolation, I hope to influence future legal education and make our justice system accessible to all Canadians.

Indeed, AI applications, including legal chatbots, use machine learning to make the law more understandable, manageable, useful, accessible, predictable, and efficient. Legal chatbots increase access to justice through their wider reach and lower costs. Many underrepresented communities receive either inadequate or no legal help at all. Technology currently cannot provide complex legal advice, but AI-powered online legal services can cost-effectively deliver accessible, basic legal help. Some, like our IP Innovation ChatBot, do so for free. Chatbots can thus democratize access to basic legal services for the underserved, and therefore deserve greater study and adoption.

Since its January 29, 2021 launch, the IP Innovation ChatBot has been a magnet for public use. Several members of the legal community have already inquired to learn how to emulate it. With the information from these analyses, I plan to design and build an enhanced, interactive, dynamic, and accessible portal powered by next-generation artificial intelligence operating on big data curated by our pioneering IP Innovation ChatBot.

The ChatBot will remain a free, sophisticated, and smart online tool, driven by AI and designed to cater to underrepresented and disenfranchised innovators. It will soon house key IP resources and information, leading updates, and links to Canadian and international government IP resources. The ChatBot’s scaled-up national platform will analyse its amassed archive of data and identify common IP knowledge translation problems to devise and anticipate solutions. Adapted for the COVID-19 era and beyond, the ChatBot will support the next generation of lawyers, educate and stimulate innovation from underrepresented communities, provide start-up entrepreneurs with access to IP resources, and be the public’s go-to tool for independent and impartial IP knowledge.

Prof Pina D’Agostino is Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, the IPilogue, the IP Innovation Clinic, and officially since January 2021 the recently launched IP Innovation Clinic ChatBot.

The post Celebrating World IP Day: What comes next for the IP Innovation ChatBot? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

, Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, opened the event by highlighting the ’s success throughout its years in making IP information more accessible and elevating diverse voices in the IP and innovation space. Professor D’Agostino laid out the event agenda, introduced the exceptional team behind the , and the for the Launch Event.

Following Professor D’Agostino’s remarks, , Vice President of Research and Innovation at 91��ɫ, provided land acknowledgements and highlighted 91��ɫ’s commitment to welcoming diverse voices to the academic space. Dr. Asif echoed the importance of making credible IP knowledge more accessible through tools such as the IP Innovation Clinic ChatBot.

, Associate Director at Lab introduced , Co-Founder & CEO of . Nikita’s inspiring story of turning his vision into reality, with the help of the BEST Lab, the IP Osgoode Innovation Clinic, and the Schulich School of Business, is a testament to the remarkable achievements that are possible through collaboration. Nikita, alongside his partner at Skygauge Robotics, , used BEST Lab resources to invent and develop a drone which uses ultra-sound technology to inspect metal structures. aims to provide a safe, efficient, and cost-effective way to inspect metal structures. With the help of the IP Innovation Clinic, Nikita and Skygauge patented their invention.

After Nikita’s presentation, it was time for the demo. The ChatBot was developed through the efforts of , Partner at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Senior Innovation Lawyer at Norton Rose, , JD Candidate and IP Innovation Clinic Coordinator, and at IP Osgoode. Al Hounsell provided a primer on artificial intelligence (AI) and how it can be utilized to deliver legal information to clients, innovators, and entrepreneurs. The can be classified as a rules-and-pattern-based AI system because it derives its baseline system of rules from information fed to it by legal experts. The ChatBot gets “smarter” by identifying patterns in its users’ input. The ChatBot identifies two key components form these patterns: intents and entities. Intents are what the ChatBot users intend to derive from the questions they ask. Entities modify intents in an AI-based system. In the context of the ChatBot, as Ryan demonstrated in the demo, entities can be defined as the alternative ways in which a question can be asked. As a result, the more familiar the ChatBot becomes with different iterations of a question, the more intelligent and competent it becomes.

The final portion of the event was a thoughtful panel discussion moderated by Osgoode Hall Law School about navigating the IP and innovation ecosystem. The came from different sectors in the IP and innovation space. Each one brought a valuable perspective on the pressing IP and innovation issues that Canada and the world face, including economic growth, accessibility, and elevating diverse voices . A common theme running through the panel discussion was the importance of creating an inclusive and accessible environment for Canadian innovators of all backgrounds to flourish; and elevating voices from underserved communities who have been left out of the conversation for too long.

The deepened my understanding of how AI can easily, accessibly, and cost-effectively deliver information to users. Intellectual property assets are often a business’s first and most valuable assets, especially in its early stages. However, many innovators cannot access legal advice about their IP rights so early on in their business. I hope that free and user-friendly tools, such as the , can alleviate some of the barriers that currently halt innovation.

For more information and a full recording of the ChatBot Launch Event, click

Written by Bonnie Hassanzadeh, IPilogue Editor and Clinic Fellow at Osgoode Innovation Clinic.

The post IP Innovation Clinic ChatBot Launch Event appeared first on IPOsgoode.

A modern IP regime is crucial not only for Canadian businesses, but is a significant consideration for the government as well. According to the , Canada ranks 17^th overall in their 2020 Global Innovation Index (GII). This overall ranking results from Canada being ranked 9^th for Innovation Inputs and 22^nd for Innovation Outputs. This wide margin is concerning. It means that Canada’s Innovation Inputs (i.e. investments in research, talent pools, market sophistications, etc.) are not efficiently translating into productive Innovation Outputs (i.e. knowledge creation, business and market growths, intangible assets, etc).

Canadians are not patenting in Canada. In the most recent , it was found that Canadians make up only 12% of patent filings in Canada; it is ranked 2^nd behind the US which accounts for 46%. Further, Canadians submitted 4,348 patent applications in Canada but then submitted 13,301 patent applications in the US. What makes this statistic particularly alarming, is the fact that Canada has a strong and healthy innovative environment, but Canadians are just in Canada. Their IP is getting , which means less money flowing back into Canada. Having said that, Canada’s IP strategy represents a concerted effort by the government to improve their IP regime systematically, starting with educating Canadians about the importance of IP.��

The strategy still falls short in helping Canadians acquire IP rights and protection. IP is expensive, especially when it comes to . Patent protection can get even more expensive when considering the possibility of having multiple patents protecting a single product and the cost of enforcing patent rights through litigation. One potential legislative response is to reduce patent fees by changing the definition of ‘small entity’. Currently under , a small entity has “50 employees or less or is a university”. Canadians who claim small entity status receive a . In the US, a also receives a 50% reduction but the definition of a small entity covers 500 employees or less. There is good reason to align the Canadian definition to that of the US.

Although helping Canadians acquire IP rights is important, businesses should also be encouraged to exploit those rights in Canada. One method is to implement tax incentives that encourage commercialization. In the past few years, have introduced patent boxes (also known as innovation or IP boxes). A patent box provides tax incentives to businesses where income derived from certain qualified IP assets is taxed at a lower rate. Variations of the patent box have been implemented provincially in , , and , but . In a journal article that evaluated the effectiveness of patent boxes, the stated, “If the objective is to generate more domestic R &D activity, ex ante expenditure-based incentives may be preferable to a patent box. If, on the other hand, the objective is to retain tax revenues associated with patent income, a patent box is more suitable.” Theoretically, patent boxes are quite appealing and warrants consideration as a policy tool.

Yet there are also reasons for concern. In 2016, Jason Furman, Chair of the US Council of Economic Advisers criticized patent boxes and characterized the resulting international economic competition as for tax cuts. Australia’s Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in their echoed Furman’s concern and added that patent boxes are “open to abuse” by corporations and may only produce a limited and temporary effect. Ultimately, Canada needs to approach the patent box idea cautiously and see whether its benefits outweigh the costs in achieving national objectives.

Written by Ryan Wong, Osgoode JD Candidate, 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 blog on a topic of their choice.

The post Canada’s IP Strategy: An Encouraging First Step appeared first on IPOsgoode.

IP Osgoode would like to congratulate the winners of the Gowling WLG Best Blog in IP Law and Technology Prize for 2019-2020.�� Four prizes in total are awarded each year to Osgoode students and the winning blog posts are featured in the IPilogue. Recipients also receive a $500 award, are announced at Convocation and receive a permanent notation on their official Osgoode transcript.

The (the “Gowling WLG IPilogue Prize”) was pioneered in Intellectual Property class in the Fall 2007 term and has been generously sponsored each year since then by Gowling WLG, formerly .

All blog entries and comments on the IPilogue submitted by Osgoode students are considered automatically for the prize (except those submitted by IPilogue Editors). In each academic semester, there is one prize for the best blog post and one prize for the best comment.

For students, this is a chance to recognize their research and writing in a specialized and technical field.�� It also encourages law students with a strong interest in Intellectual Property Law to develop that interest.�� Of course, the subject matter of the IPilogue goes beyond strictly IP.�� Our stories also delve into related areas including: internet law, privacy rights, broadcasting, social media and free speech.

We are pleased to announce this year’s winners of the Gowling WLG IPilogue Prizes:

Fall 2019 Term:

Best Blog:��Lauren Chypyha on

Best Blog Comment: We did not award a winner for this category

Winter 2020 Term:

Best Blog Post – We have a tie:

Ryan Wong on “”

Maggie Vourakes on

Best Blog Comment: Madison Black’s comment on “”

Congratulations to our winners and thank you to all who make the IPilogue possible.�� We are most grateful to Gowling WLG for its generous support.

The post Announcing the Winners of the Gowling WLG Best Blog in IP Law and Technology Prize appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Patent Lawyer and Agent Fees

Patent agents and/or lawyers are essential for acquiring a patent. In particular, these professionals help with the drafting and filing of the patent, which is an extremely technical process. Further, acquiring a patent can involve several back and forths with intellectual property office, where you negotiate with the government to determine the scope of the patent itself. A well-drafted patent can make a big difference and give the patent owner a much broader form of protection.

In Canada, the average cost of a patent can vary from . In the US, the average cost of a patent is similar, ranging between – though some sources claim it could cost upwards of . The costs are dependent on , including the complexity of the invention, the quality of the work, and the number of back and forths with the intellectual property office.

Government Fees

Government fees include the initial cost of the patent application and the yearly maintenance fees once a patent has been granted. A summary of the patent fees are illustrated in the table below. In Canada, a small entity is generally a business with less than 50 employees.

��

In the US, a is generally a business with less than 500 employees. Entities are those small entities that have fewer than five patent applications and whose income must be below a “Maximum Qualifying Gross Income” threshold. Note, the table below represents the fees for a utility patent.

Patents are expensive, but they give the owner a powerful tool to stop others from making, using, or selling their invention (also known as a negative right). Patents give the owner a monopoly to commercially exploit their invention for a profit. Ultimately, the primary consideration should be whether the potential return is worth the investment.

Written by Ryan Wong, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. He is a guest contributor with the IPilogue and is one of the Student Coordinators with the Innovation Clinic.

��

��

��

The post How much does a patent cost? And why appeared first on IPOsgoode.