Photo by Hermes Rivera ()

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

For those of you like me who have survived this long asking the question “what is an NFT?” and requiring someone to repeat their answer after you zoned out, here is the definition:

(“”): a digital asset that represents real-world objects like art, music, in-game items, and videos. They are bought and sold online, frequently with cryptocurrency, and are generally encoded with the same underlying software as many cryptos.

Usually brought up with an example of a picture, this phenomenon is making a pretty big debut at the beginning of this decade. Like with many new technologies these days, the laws around NFTs are constantly updating to accommodate this new concept of digital assets. This is all to say that this recent lawsuit filed will once again change NFT’s meaning.

through NFTs. The mega shoe brand alleges that these sales will confuse customers.

is a that sells sneakers, streetwear, electronics, and other daily accessories. What makes this marketplace different from the others is its business of selling NFTs linked to physical goods. Buyers purchase the NFT, which can be sold for the physical item in the image or traded as a digital good.

Here is the confusing part. When StockX sells these NFTs, the NFT is often a picture of the item made by another company—. Therefore, Nike claims that the sale of the NFT of a Nike product constitutes a trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and many other unauthorized use violations.

. In addition to destroying these NFTs, Nike is asking for damages for all related sales and for StockX to stop selling any NFTs related to the Nike brand.

The lawsuit so far contains many harsh comments about StockX, including that it “, but rather by .”

StockX responded to the lawsuit by saying that NFTs are a “” and that they will be fighting the claim in court.

Regarding StockX’s comment, I believe it is true that NFTs, a new concept that has taken society by storm in the last two years, continue to grow. This type of lawsuit was bound to happen, and the intellectual property law sector needs answers. Unfortunately, Nike and StockX happen to be the parties which must go through the legal process to benefit others. It will be interesting to see the outcome as the decision will likely set a precedent and change how many global companies conduct business.

The post “Murky Terms of Purchase and Ownership”: Nike Sues StockX Over Virtual Sneaker NFTs appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Markus Winkler��

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

Since the summer of 2020, the Canadian federal government has been looking for ways to decrease the needless delays and unwanted wait times present in the patent process under the Patent Rules. This search to streamline the patent prosecution procedure is to help Canada meet its obligations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty and Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). On July 3, 2021, the government proposed , with excess claim fees sticking out to many legal professionals across the country.

:

(i) at the time of a [request] for each claim in excess of 20 claims; and

(ii) at the time of payment of the final fee, for each claim in excess of the greater of:

(a) 20 claims on the date the notice of allowance is sent, and

(b) the sum of 20 claims plus the number of excess claims for which a fee was paid at the time of the [request]

In the , put out by Canada Gazette, the government states that applicants will be encouraged to limit their files with the new fees. This limitation reduces the burden of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) by limiting the number of claims that must be reviewed and likely reducing the number of errors, edits, and comments that the applicants must amend. With these fees, and the hope that applicants abide by the rules, CIPO can reduce the time it takes for an application to be processed.

The current proposal is a standard fee of $100 to be administered for each excess claim over 20, with a fee of $50 for smaller entities. There is no set time when these amendments will come into effect, but Smart & Biggar’s Partner that it will be no later than July 1, 2022.

Currently, wage the debate of whether to request an examination of an application now or later under the new amendments. It seems that some have already found a way to get around the excess fees. David Schwartz : "… [A]n applicant would have the opportunity to avoid the payment of claim fees by amending the application to reduce the number of claims to 20 before or at the time of requesting examination."

However, some firms are still encouraging applicants to consider avoiding the excess fees by requesting examination before the new amendments come into play: “.”

It will be interesting to see the impact of the new amendments on the queue of applications. Regardless, with the push to avoid the excess claims , it seems that CIPO will have a busy start to the new year.

The post Canada’s New Patent Rules for Excess Claim Fees & What You Need To Know Now appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by ()

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Intellectual property law truly is incorporated in every aspect of society and the issue of lacking creativity in designing sports bras and leggings only reassures that statement. On November 24, 2021, , known for its interactive exercise bike, sued . Peloton seeks a that its new clothing design does not infringe on ���ܱ��ܱ��𳾴Dz�’s design patent.

This lawsuit comes after Lululemon, known for its athletic apparel and technical clothing, wrote a letter dated November 11, 2021, to Peloton threatening to sue if they do not stop selling specific items from its new clothing line. It only took five days for Lululemon to follow through with its threat and Peloton for infringing on its design patents.

Peloton and Lululemon have a long history with each other. The two companies had a co-branding relationship for , where Peloton agreed to make and put their branding on wholesale purchases of ���ܱ��ܱ��𳾴Dz�’s apparel. This agreement ended earlier this year “” as Peloton commented that the process was not efficient for the high demands it experienced. The end of this partnership led to Peloton releasing its own clothing in September 2021, from which Lululemon alleges multiple copies of its clothing designs.

As of now, Lululemon claims that Peloton has infringed on six of their patent designs with these articles of clothing: the Cadent Laser Dot Bra, the Strappy Bra, the Cadent Peak Bra, the High Neck Bra, and the Cadent Laser Dot Leggings. Peloton has responded to these claims saying that Lululemon “.” Peloton says that their clothing designs are easy to distinguish from ���ܱ��ܱ��𳾴Dz�’s designs and that Lululemon does not deserve patent protection for their “” designs.

Following up with its claim, Lululemon says that “.” Lululemon is also claiming that instead of responding to its November 11 letter, .

Screenshot from

���ܱ��ܱ��𳾴Dz�’s against Peloton make the designs seem somewhat similar; however, the designs are simple enough that patent protection may be an extreme case. With that said, it will be interesting to see the outcome of these cases as the comments from both parties don’t seem relatively “” at this point.

The post Breaking a Sweat Over Patents: Lululemon and Peloton’s Competing Lawsuits appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Simon Noh ()

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On October 13, 2021, legendary singer and icon Cher filed a at the California Central District Federal Court against Mary Bono [Bono], former Republican U.S. Representative. Bono is the fourth wife and widow of the late Sonny Bono [Sonny], Cher’s ex-husband and famous singing partner. Cher and Sonny recorded famous songs such as , , , and more.��

Cher filed the lawsuit due to Bono and Sonny’s estate refusing to pay Cher royalties from the singing duo’s music catalogue. Overdue to pay these royalties, Bono has made her opinions clear, with her lawyer commenting to the Los Angeles Times: “.” With tensions high, the are nowhere in sight.

Bono claims that Cher is no longer entitled to 50 percent of the royalties from Sonny and Cher’s songs as per the ex-couple’s divorce settlement agreement. The claim states that Cher and Sonny agreed when divorcing that the two will split the royalties of the songs they created together.

Pursuant to section 203 of the U.S.’s ��“Act”], authors are able to cancel transfers of copyright protections and claim all rights after 35 years in certain situations. This notion has been in the news lately involving the late . This section, however, is challenged by section 302(b) of the Act which states: “In the case of a joint work … the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author’s death.” If section 302 takes priority, Cher should be able to decide the royalties until her death and then 70 years more.

Bono, the trustee of Sonny’s entire estate and trust, configured the trust earlier in 2016. In the lawsuit, Cher states that in 2016, . One of those partnerships is Cher. These changes were only brought to Cher’s attention in September 2021, when she was also alerted that she was no longer allowed to approve the uses of their songs and many other entitled rights.

says that this claim comes down to who . The owner of the music should be the one who decides who is able to transfer and reclaim rights. Most importantly, though, it is absurd that Bono has decided for herself to reclaim all transfers and to end Cher’s royalties.

Cher is now seeking a million dollars in damages and asking the court to make a declaratory judgment saying the estate did not end her rights. This claim will most likely be handled through settlement, but as the public, we should sit back, enjoy this , and watch as .

The post “I Got [Royalties] Babe”: Cher Sues Mary Bono appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Marvin Meyer ()

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

As I searched for a topic for this blog post, I encountered a common theme: the Canadian technology sector is constantly asking for more action from the Canadian government aimed at fostering innovation in the community. Whether creating laws to help govern start-ups, eliminating laws to encourage innovation, or collaborating with other countries to combine resources, the sector alleges the Canadian government is missing vital opportunities to benefit Canadians.����

One of my most recent blog covered the intellectual property, technology, and energy platform points from the Liberal Party and Green Party. Many share the view that both of these parties, and in fact every party, lacked points in these areas. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government have been in the news for making announcements to help the “energy revolution” but failing to implement effective measures.

I have outlined below a few sectors which need innovation to expand. I hope to leave readers informed enough to form their own opinions on what government action is necessary and to pique their interest in what happens next and what other sectors need fixing.

Climate Change

The importance of climate change has become clear over the last decade and the issue played a major role in the most recent Federal election. Trying to cut down fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions, the Canadian innovation and technology sectors look to innovators to patent new, less wasteful creations.

In December 2020, the Government of Canada released a new climate plan: “.”. The plan states that Canada will exceed its 2030 Paris Agreement emissions reductions goals and lay a foundation for net-zero emissions by 2050. However, , an independent scientific analysis that tracks governments’ climate action plans, has deemed Canada’s plans to be “.”

To effectively combat climate change, Canada must invest more into innovation and intellectual property to create new jobs and effective methods of reducing emissions. Investment is necessary to become a leader of the “.” Put simply by : “.

The Pharmaceutical Sector

Another major global crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, has illustrated Canada’s strengths and weaknesses in the pharmaceutical industry. According to the : “.” In their , Canada earned a grading level of D in patents. This grade is reflected by Canada’s lack of investment into COVID-19 vaccine research. Prime Minister Trudeau even the lack of effort and vowed to make change.

In a recent article, and offer a solution to this issue for when the next global pandemic arrives: “.” Edwards and Morgan view the current Canadian policies as playing well politically but failing to drive innovative intellectual property in the pharmaceutical sector.

Research & Development (R&D)

Joel Bilt points out that Canada is the only G7 country “.” This decline is one of the instances where the community is asking the government to eliminate laws to allow the innovation sector to grow. Bilt writes: “.” Currently, most Canadian innovators are looking internationally to patent ideas, and . Positively, ideas are growing and more Canadian inventors need patents. However, a growing number of these inventors are not using the domestic patent system.

It is no secret that Canada’s R&D has experienced a in the last few decades. The question is what the country can do now, and in the future, to help the domestic R&D sector grow and expand. Whether by creating accessible paths to more patents, increasing education and funding, or an alternative route, it is up to the Government of Canada to act.

The post Current or Ongoing? An Interesting Trend in Intellectual Property News appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Kyle Gregory Devaras ()

Shawn��Dhue��is an��IPilogue��Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

��

Homework and studying for school have come a long way over the years. When I was in elementary and high school, I remember using (“Pearson”) textbooks for subjects such as math and science. However, I recall certain books had the answers in them. Although answers, the textbook usually gave one- or two-worded answers to those dreadful questions that ended with “explain your answer” or “show all your work.” This issue is why Chegg was created.����

is an online education company that provides textbook solutions, tutoring, and many other student services. The website allows students to input their homework questions and, within minutes, they will receive step-by-step answers to their questions. This service helps home-schooled students, students who complete additional homework questions, and students who are afraid to speak up and ask for help in class, among others. There has been a����since the��COVID-19 pandemic��moved many students��to remote learning.����

Copyright Infringement?��

Chegg�� by hiring freelance workers to prepare step-by-step processes to answer the questions at the end of each chapter of Pearson textbooks. Although Pearson does not provide these answers nor retain ownership of the solutions, Pearson alleges that Chegg provides its clients with “.” Additionally, Chegg systematically provides answers to their users, usually organized by titles similar to those in Pearson textbooks. ��

Pearson filed��their�� on September 13, 2021, in a New Jersey federal court. The complaint makes multiple comparisons between Pearson textbooks and Chegg’s online forum, providing the court with various webpage screenshots. The complaint, made under��, states:��

“.”��

Under the U.S.��Code, copyright infringement��occurs��“.” Many lawyers have����on��the possibility of Pearson winning their complaint as it does not quite match the previously mentioned definition.��, a litigation partner at Romano Law PLLC, states, “.”��As��Pearson only recently submitted��the complaint, there is no��telling��how the courts will decide on the matter at this time.��

Importance &��Potential Implications��

This complaint will��definitely be��one to follow. In the same interview, Haff��:����

“When the current U.S.��Copyright Act��was being amended in the 1960s, there was a push from stakeholders in the textbook industry to expand derivative works to include what was being described as supplementary works… prepared by another for the purpose of explaining, illustrating or commenting on tests and answer materials for tests.”��

This approach was never adopted, though; hence, the reason for many to question if Pearson will succeed. If Pearson were to win, this judgment would have implications for many stakeholders outside of Pearson and Chegg. Many tutoring companies and education corporations similar to Chegg use the same methods in order to provide their clients with answers that they cannot receive through Pearson textbooks. Students and teachers will also disadvantaged because these homework-helping mechanisms provide easier access to remote learning and help. However, Chegg and other similar services are known to help ; therefore, I understand many people wanting Pearson’s complaint��to��prevail.����

The post “Pearson v Chegg”: Is “Cheating” a Copyright Infringement? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Comfreak ()

Shawn��Dhue��is an��IPilogue��Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

��

The US has started a worldwide complaint about China’s new legal strategy against intellectual property (IP) theft claims. Since the beginning of 2020, four claims of IP theft have gone to Chinese courts. Three of these claims were against some of China’s largest telecom companies: , , and . , one of Sweden’s most prominent tech corporations, brought a fourth claim against , a South Korean telecom company. These claims have ended with the Chinese courts granting the Asian telecom companies anti-suit injunctions against their complainants.

These developments came after Beijing promised to develop a better relationship with the US during their 2020 trade deal talks. Beijing said that it would “.” However, the US is now concerned that Chinese courts will not fulfill these promises.

The Decision that Turned Heads:

In September 2020, the Hubei Province Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China released the first decision in the four major cases. Xiaomi is the world’s largest smartphone producer, selling millions of devices since 2013. However, Xiaomi has been using a patent by InterDigital Inc. (InterDigital) to produce those devices. InterDigital, based in Delaware, USA, holds multiple patents for digital technology used in smartphones across the world.

When Xiaomi and InterDigital began to sever ties around July 2020, InterDigital for patent infringement. In retaliation, Xiaomi applied for an anti-suit injunction in Wuhan. The Wuhan Court granted Xiaomi an injunction, prohibiting InterDigital from taking Xiaomi to any court. The consequence of breaking this injunction is near $1 million per week for the Delaware-based company. The world, especially the US, was shocked as this decision was the first outcome for an IP theft claim between the US and China. Little did they know that this would become the first of many.

Competing Perspectives

The US is unsurprisingly the leading complainant about China’s legal strategy. In an article describing China’s anti-suit injunctions as a “new legal weapon,” Charles Boustany, Member of the Commission on the Theft of Intellectual Property in the US, states: “.” Importantly, the anti-suit injunction is neither new nor a legal strategy that China has created recently. commonly issue anti-suit injunctions. These injunctions help prevent identical intellectual property thefts in multiple jurisdictions.

Brian Pomper, a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, says: “.” The Chinese Embassy in the US has not responded to these comments. Many are now looking to China to respond in the wake of these actions, which conflict with Beijing’s promises mentioned above in the 2020 US-China trade deal. Beijing made these promises on behalf of political trades, speaking on behalf of the Chinese economic market without considering what private entities may do in the future. Chinese courts seem to have different plans in mind to protect the country’s flourishing technology sector.

��Importance

Concluding the war between Xiaomi and InterDigital, the two companies have reached settlements. These settlements come after InterDigital brought claims to courts in and . Both courts agreed that Xiaomi’s anti-suit injunction was inconsistent with the law and . However, these settlements don’t change the outcome in the Wuhan court, nor the outcomes in the three other anti-suit injunction applications in different Chinese courts.

China has always departed from standard Western practices. Nevertheless, anti-suit injunctions are commonly used around the world. Therefore, the question remains of whether the US and UK using anti-suit injunctions are any different from China using them. It is important to recognize that a country may use these injunctions to protect against IP theft claims. However, if it is common in one jurisdiction, it should be allowed in others. The complaints are valid as it is a new strategy. But time is better spent thinking of new legal strategies against China’s “” than trying to ban a whole country from using a typical legal claim.

The post Offence Or Defence? China’s New Legal “Weapon” Against Intellectual Property Theft Claims and The US’ Response appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Louis Hansel ()

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

The Joyful Celebration of Beer: Oktoberfest

Originating in October 1810, has been a celebration of beer for centuries. This two-week festival, starting in September and finishing the first Sunday of October, is held yearly in Munich, Germany. People travel from all around the world to consume upwards of two million gallons of beer.

Local communities around the world host their own version of the celebration. Around the same time of year, cities such as and Toronto either keep the name or call it . However, nothing can beat the traditional festivities in Munich. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has stopped the normal festival from running for the last . On Saturday, September 18, 2021, locals and travellers from around the globe should have filled the streets of Munich, while being intoxicated and laughing with old and new friends.

Munich not holding their traditional volksfest (“”) isn’t the only difference this year. , the organizers of this spectacular funfair have finally trademarked the term “.”

The Uphill Battle of Trademarking the Term “Oktoberfest”

Since 2016, the City of Munich has put forward applications to trademark the term; and ever since 2016, their applications have been rejected. The German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) has repeatedly denied Munich the trademark. DPMA states that the term is “” and must remain public pursuant to of , Germany’s trademark legislation.

Flash-forward to fall 2020, after Munich cancelled Oktoberfest for the first time, the city registered for the trademark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). After months of discussions and the DPMA appealing the decision, Munich successfully achieved its goal on . The EUIPO allowed Munich to trademark Oktoberfest under twenty-two product classes including, most importantly, tourism advertising. The application to the EUIPO stated that Munich wished to trademark the term to prevent others from advertising and profiting off products associated with the event or events replicating the festival. The trademark allows Munich exclusive rights over the term in products ranging from credit cards to soap.

Therefore, although Munich is not allowed to hold Oktoberfest again this year, this trademark protection ensures that no one else profits off the term; a matter that the city already legally fought in 2021.

The Trademark in Action: Oktoberfest in Dubai

Earlier in 2021, a group of corporations announced that since Munich could not hold its traditional Oktoberfest, . The organizers attempted to recreate the festival under the phrase, “.” As imagined, this event angered many Germans. Munich acted quickly and released a reassuring the world that the original event was not moving locations. Additionally, Munich took the organizers to court.

Clemens Baumgärtner, the head of Oktoberfest, and Munich brought a to the Munich I Regional Court. On June 25, 2021, the Court ruled in favour of Baumgärtner and Munich. The judgment states that the organizers of the copycat festival were banned from using their slogan, the term “Oktoberfest,” and any pictures of the traditional festival in their advertising. The judge stated: “.” Baumgärtner says that although the global pandemic shut down the event for the second year in a row, Oktoberfest moving to Dubai is “.”

A Happy Ending for Munich

These events show how crucial it is for areas to protect their cultures and their historical events. Every year, the media portrays Oktoberfest in different countries, under the same name or another (“” for example); every year, it’s, in my opinion, an awful portrayal of the German traditions that occur in Munich. Munich’s Oktoberfest is not just for drinking beer and getting intoxicated. Although simplified to “beer festival,” the term “volksfest” is also known as a “.” A volksfest always has beer, but also amusement rides, games, food, and many more attractions. These festivals connect and unite a community, creating a sense of belonging. Trademarking the term “Oktoberfest” helps Munich protect its history and deter copycats from slandering the name. I believe modern laws, especially intellectual property and trademark laws, have amazing developments which protect history and culture.

The post “Oktoberfest”: A Missed Celebration & a Hard Term to Trademark appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by ��(
)

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

In light of the recent court decision of [Apotex], I have decided to look at precedents from around the world where courts have contemplated recognizing artificial intelligence (AI) technology as an “inventor.” As will follow, Canada addressed this matter in . However, this 2002 decision did not define whether AI technology can be an inventor. A lot has changed over the past nineteen years, and in Thaler gave some insight into what the future could look like for AI “inventors.”

United States: Thaler v Hirshfeld et al

On September 3, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, lead by Judge Brinkema, ruled on the appeal made by . Thaler and his colleague, , created an AI creativity machine called Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS). The two creators listed DABUS as the inventor on two applications for patents for the inventions of a light beacon and a food container. In April 2020, the US patent office rejected the applications, stating that an inventor must be a human, not a robot:

“.”

Thaler replied that listing himself as the inventor rather than DABUS would be “.”

On appeal, Judge Brinkema agreed that Thaler and Abbott could not list DABUS as the inventor on a patent. :

“Congrss intended to limit the definition of ‘inventor’ to natural persons. As technology evolves, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of sophistication such that it might satisfy accepted meanings of inventorship. But that time has not yet arrived…”

This decision leaves the matter open to a future of possibility, giving a precedent that is easily changeable.

Australia:

In February 2021, Thaler filed an application for the same patent in Australia. Johnathan Beach J of the Federal Court of Australia ruled that “the name of the inventor can be a non-human.” Continuing, Beach J explains that “an inventor as recognised under the [] can be an artificial intelligence system or device. But such a non-human inventor can neither be an applicant for a patent nor a grantee of a patent.” This decision was a historic ruling in Australia. .

United Kingdom:

In September 2020, a UK judge dismissed Thaler’s appeal to the decision rejecting his applications. The judge stated that DABUS is not the inventor and cannot be the inventor. explained his reasoning by saying that the meaning of the word “inventor” is limited to people under UK patent law.

Canada:

As mentioned, Apotex was the most recent Supreme Court of Canada decision that spoke to humans being inventors for patent applications. However, this decision did not directly speak to the question of whether AI technology could be encompassed under the definition of “inventor.” Binnie J, for the Court, stated that “[the Court] infer[s] that the inventor is the person or persons who conceived of the “new and useful” art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any “new and useful” improvement thereto” [emphasis added].

With that said, by way of Judge Brinkema’s comments and the precedents of the Federal Court of Australia, I believe there is a strong argument for allowing AI technology to be considered an inventor. Canada classifying AI technology as inventors would create a strong push for new AI technology. Canada’s patent law is not currently prepared to deal with such a progression; however, as technology advances, amendments are likely to follow.

The post Can AI Technology Create a Patent in Canada? A Look at Global Precedents appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photos from and , created on .

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

In anticipation of Canada’s federal election on September 20, 2021, it is relevant to research the federal parties’ platforms as they relate to intellectual property (IP), innovation, and technology. In this post, I will look at the of the Liberal Party of Canada (“Liberal Party”) and the Green Party of Canada (“Green Party”). Make sure to check out my colleague ’s post investigating .

��The Liberal Party of Canada’s 2021 Federal Election Platform

Three main points involving technology and intellectual property stick out in the Liberal Party’s platform for the upcoming election:

1.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has yet to confirm if he supports the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Waiver.

As push to support and request that wealthier countries relax their IP protection laws to ensure the COVID-19 vaccine is shared globally, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has yet to comment. In May 2021, Trudeau said that he supports sharing vaccines globally and that he . However, this was the last time Trudeau spoke publicly about the matter, and he has yet to acknowledge it while campaigning. Three days after his comment, published a to the Prime Minister, urging him to support the waiver and help countries like India and South Africa combat their COVID-19 outbreaks.

2. The Liberal Party plans to create , an initiative “to help innovators access expert intellectual property services, with $90 million over two years, and another $75 million over three years for a similar Industrial Research Assistance Program for high-growth firms.”

The Liberal Party sees this investment as supporting small businesses, innovators, tech start-ups, and more. The Liberal Party acknowledges the value of IP and states that they would love to see the economy use the IP community for growth opportunities. As such, they plan to support ElevateIP with a Strategic Intellectual Property Program Review, which will assess this initiative and help programming from the start of research to near-commercial projects. This initiative is said to ensure Canadians reap the benefits from the IP and tech industry. ��������������������

3. The Liberal Party plans to renew the .

In 2017, the Canadian government for the world’s first nationwide Artificial Intelligence (AI) strategy. The strategy aims to foster a more collaborative AI environment by attracting AI researchers to the country. Additionally, the Liberal Party hopes to advance national initiatives in the AI community to help society better understand the implications of AI. Renewing this strategy would bring Canada to the forefront of the global AI community.

The Liberal Party’s platform includes a few more noteworthy points. The Liberal Party hopes to provide to support small business technology needs and connect those small businesses with younger people looking for tech careers over four years. The platform also speaks to helping large-scale energy technology projects by providing them with $1 billion over five years. Lastly, the Liberal Party plans to create the Centre for Innovation and Clean Energy in British Columbia during their next term, with an estimated cost of $35 million.

The Green Party of Canada’s 2021 Federal Election Platform

The Green Party has yet to release a full election platform. Leader Annamie Paul says that circumstances are different this election and anyone who wants to see the Green Party’s platform can “.” For the party known to be environment-focused, Paul states that not much has changed since the 2019 election. Paul reiterated this when British Columbia’s heatwave claimed multiple lives earlier this summer.��

With this, three noteworthy points emerge from the Green Party’s platform as they relate to IP, innovation, and energy:

1.The Green Party plans to in First Nations communities, aligned with the .

This point intersects with several issues, including economy and affordability, Indigenous affairs, and energy. The Green Party hopes to partner with Indigenous communities to revamp the east-west electricity grid to transmit renewable energy from one region to another. This will create renewable energy for First Nations communities at a lower cost than building a new grid in areas without access to these energy sources.

2. The Green Party plans to invest in comprehensive training programs to repurpose the skills of industrial trades workers for jobs in the renewable energy sector.

The Green Party hopes that this plan will provide skilled workers in Canada with secure employment opportunities.

3. The Green Party hopes to implement an energy efficiency retrofit program for all buildings.

“Energy efficiency retrofitting” upgrades a building’s energy-consuming system. Retrofitting could involve improving light fixtures, windows, doors, ventilation, or insulation to make ��buildings more energy and economically efficient. The Green Party hopes to create a program to make sure buildings around Canada can help fight the climate crisis.

The Green Party still has time to release a new, expanded platform within the coming weeks.

The post The Parties’ Plans for IP: Liberal Party & Green Party appeared first on IPOsgoode.