Author: Debbie Malek

New Federal Court Decision Provides for Greater Protection of Combination Drugs Under CETA

Posted on by Debbie Malek

In 2017, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) came into force. CETA covers virtually all sectors and aspects of trade and aims to increase bilateral trade and investment between Canada and the EU. In order to comply with this agreement, Canada enacted the CETA Implementation Act (CIA) which provided for, among other things, the introduction of the Certificate of Supplementary Protection (CSP) to the Patent Act. CSPs offer up to two years of additional protection to patentees for the medicinal ingredient or the combination of medicinal ingredients in a drug and is meant to compensate for time spent researching and obtaining regulatory approvals. In order to receive a CSP, the drug must be approved by Health Canada via a Notice of Compliance (NOC).

On July 10, 2020, the Federal Court issued a decision in a judicial review on the Minister of Health’s (the “Minister”) refusal to issue a CSP to ViiV Healthcare ULC (“ViiV”) in respect of Canadian Patent No. 2,606,282 (the “282 patent”) and the drug JULUCA®. JULUCA® is a combination drug containing medicinal ingredients dolutegravir and rilpivirine. The 282 patent is listed on the Patent register with respect to JULUCA®. The 282 patent, has claims directed only to dolutegravir, but does not have claims directed at the combination of dolutegravir and rilpivirine.

At issue in this judicial review, was whether the Minister had reasonably interpreted the Patent Act and the CSP Regulations (CSPR) in a manner that was consistent with CETA. The Minister was of the position that a CSP could not be granted because the 282 Patent does not pertain to the combination of the medicinal ingredients contained in JULUCA®. In taking this position, the Minister relied primarily on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) for the CSPR and the CSP’s Guidance Document. ViiV took the position that CETA’s intellectual property provisions were intended to provide protection for single medicinal ingredients or combinations of medicinal ingredients in new drug products. In addition, ViiV contended that the Minister’s interpretation would incentivize drug manufacturer’s to continue to make separate products instead of innovating fixed-dose combination therapies. The Court held that the Minister had unreasonably considered ViiV’s submission since the CIA required that the CSP legislation be interpreted in a manner that was consistent with CETA and that the sole reliance of the Minister on the CSPR RIAS and associated Guidance Document was not adequate, as neither CSPR RIAS nor the Guidance document has legislative force. As such, the Court granted the judicial review and remitted the matter to the Minister for redetermination.

In conclusion, this decision, if not appealed by the Minister would expand the scope of combination drugs eligible for CSP protection. In addition, this decision exemplifies the importance of harmonious interpretation of Canada’s international obligations and the statutory language with respect to IP protection in Canada.

For more information, please contact:

Poonam Tauh, Partner, Patent Agent
T: 403-800-9018
E: ptauh@mbm.com

Co-author: Carl Farah, Law Student

 

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Almost 2 Years Post-Cannabis Legalization – A Comparative View of the Budding Industry Across Canada

Posted on by Debbie Malek

For budding cannabis enterprises in Canada, navigating the legal and regulatory regimes pose unique challenges. This article will briefly discuss the federal cannabis framework and delve into the various provincial frameworks adopted across Canada for the recreational sale of cannabis.

The Cannabis Act (the “Act”) came into force on October 17, 2018, and legalized the sale, distribution and consumption of recreational cannabis across Canada. Exactly one year later, the second wave of cannabis legalization introduced Cannabis 2.0 products to the marketplace. Cannabis 2.0 products include edibles, topicals, vape pens and beverages. The Act gives the Canadian federal government the power to regulate the cultivation, processing and sale tracking of cannabis. It sets the minimum age of consumption at 18 years old and allows for the possession of up to 30 g of cannabis per individual. In concert with the provinces, the federal government has the authority to regulate road safety, impaired driving, regulatory compliance and taxation. The federal government is also responsible for establishing regulations surrounding the branding, labelling and marketing of cannabis.

In response to the Act, each province has also adopted its own framework for recreational cannabis. The provinces are permitted to strengthen, but not weaken, the federal legislation and are responsible for regulating the age of consumption, retail sales, possession limits, advertisements and home cultivation, amongst other aspects. Here, we present an overview of the regulatory schemes for recreational cannabis of each province.

 

The Maritimes

St. John’s, NL will famously be remembered as the location of the first legal sale of recreational cannabis in Canada. The Maritime Provinces have mostly adopted a legislative monopoly for the retail of recreational cannabis with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, which has chosen to implement a mixture of the public and private models. New Brunswick has announced that due to disappointing sales numbers, it will accept takeover bids for its retail operations.[1] The province hopes this switch to private retail will energize the private sector and maximize benefits for taxpayers. To order cannabis online in Nova Scotia, consumers must first visit a brick-and-mortar store and obtain an online access code by showing valid proof of age. This age verification measure is intended to prevent minors from browsing the website. In light of the recent illnesses associated with vaping, Nova Scotia has banned the sale of flavored cannabis vaping products.[2] Newfoundland and Labrador has taken a stricter approach to cannabis vaping products by banning their sale entirely.[3]

 

The Territories

Both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have implemented a legislative monopoly of the retail sale of recreational cannabis while the Yukon has opted for a mix of the public and private model. The Yukon is in the process of selling its provincially owned physical stores to the private sector but plans to retain online store.[4] The Nunavut crown corporation operates entirely from within the provincial government via a special revolving fund that sees its profits transferred back to the government at the end of each year. This approach ensures that the profits of legalization are directly put to work for the taxpayers. Interestingly, there are no physical stores in Nunavut and customers must rely on two territory approved agents for online purchases.

 

Ontario

Ontario had initially planned to implement a government monopoly, which would have established online and physical points-of-sale. This plan was abandoned, and it was decided to instead let the private sector run the brick-and-motor stores. These last-minute changes meant that stores were not ready by legalization and customers had to rely exclusively on the online store. The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) is the regulator in charge of licensing private retailers throughout the province. In response to a slow rollout of retail stores, the province has cancelled its lottery system for awarding licenses and will instead open up applications and issue up to 20 store authorizations per month. Private retailers must apply and obtain a Retail Operator License and a Retail Store Authorization from the AGCO. The Ontario Cannabis Store, which runs the online store, is the exclusive wholesaler to private retailers. As of this article, roughly 500 applications have been submitted to the AGCO.

 

Quebec

Quebec decided to implement a legislated monopoly on the sale of recreational cannabis. The Cannabis Regulation Act explicitly authorizes the Société Québécoise du cannabis (SQDC), a subsidiary of the Société des alcools du Québec (SAQ), as the sole entity in charge of regulating recreational cannabis sales. It was decided to increase the minimum age of consumption to 21, the highest in the country.[5] Quebec has also banned the home cultivation of cannabis plants for personal use. To protect children from the risk of inadvertent consumption, the Quebec government has decided to ban cannabis chocolates, sweets, and desserts.[6] In the face of a dramatic increase in vaping-associated lung illnesses south of the border, Quebec has banned cannabis vaping products.[7]

 

The Prairies

Both Manitoba and Saskatchewan have adopted a private model for the recreational sale of cannabis while Alberta opted for a public and private model. To the surprise of many, Alberta has become the poster child of a successful recreational cannabis rollout; boasting nearly 500 licensed retailers.[8] Alberta is also home to Aurora Cannabis which owns and operates an 800,000 square foot growing facility, one of the largest in Canada.[9] Edmonton will soon be home to the largest manufacturing plant in Canada for the production of cannabis gummies.[10] Saskatchewan and Ontario are currently the only two provinces that allow private retailers to deliver cannabis directly to consumers.

 

British Columbia

British Columbia (BC) has adopted a public and private model for the sale of recreational cannabis whereby the provincially run Crown corporation operates online and physical points of sale and the licensed private retailers operate physical stores. Interestingly, British Columbia was allegedly, Canada’s largest illicit market of recreational cannabis prior to legalization. Commentators who were hoping that BC’s large illicit market would translate into a strong retail presence were surprised when BC posted one of the worst sales records amongst the provinces one year into legalization.[11] Indeed, it appears that a substantial portion of the current dispensaries throughout the province operate without a license.[12] In order to protect the youth from vaping, the province has recently passed new regulations which prohibit nicotine-cannabis vaping products.[13]

 

Conclusion

Table 1 below provides a quick glance at the differences in the regulatory frameworks adopted by each province. It is still too early to tell which provinces will come out on top and which will have to tweak their regulatory frameworks to reflect emerging trends and public policy. Market stabilization could take many years and while the illicit market will not disappear overnight, it is important that federal and provincial governments apply pressure to squeeze it out. Moving forward, it will be important for the provinces to reflect on whether their chosen regulatory frameworks are actually achieving their intended objectives. Navigating these regulatory regimes can be daunting. Instead of taking this journey alone, we recommend you contact one of the legal professionals at MBM. Interested businesses should also check out our recent article that details how to protect your cannabis related trademark.

  

For more information, please contact:

T: 613-567-0762
E: patents@mbm.com

Authors: Osman Ismaili, Patent Associate, and Carl Farah, Law Student

 

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/cannabis-pot-new-brunswick-companies-1.5424992
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cannabis-vape-health-flavour-ban-1.5387308
[3] https://financialpost.com/cannabis/cannabis-health/newfoundland-labrador-bans-sales-of-cannabis-vapes
[4] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/cannabis-retail-stores-yukon-1.5478599
[5] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/legal-age-cannabis-edibles-1.5399211
[6] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/cannabis-regulations-quebec-legal-1.5223723
[7] https://financialpost.com/cannabis/cannabis-health/newfoundland-labrador-bans-sales-of-cannabis-vapes
[8] https://aglc.ca/cannabis/retail-cannabis/cannabis-licensee-search
[9] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/aurora-sky-cannabis-airport-1.4856279
[10] https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/edmonton-set-to-be-home-to-largest-cannabis-gummy-facility-in-canada
[11] Statistics Canada, The Retail Cannabis Market in Canada: A Portrait of the First Year, Catalogue no. 11‑621‑M (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 19 June 2020).
[12] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cannabis-pot-shops-illegal-vancouver-1.5616877
[13] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vaping-laws-update-bc-1.5656157

Green Tech Patents – How Canadian Government is Helping the Process

Posted on by Debbie Malek

With the world beginning to reopen following the COVID-19 pandemic, many of us may be feeling a new mindfulness when it comes to the environment and the effects that our civilization has had on it.

Similarly, with many inventors focusing on technologies that either help resolve or mitigate environmental impacts, or conserve the natural environment and resources that are present, perhaps it is a good time to turn our attention towards the intersection of patent rights and the environment.

Several jurisdictions around the world have implemented special legislative provisions that incentivize the patenting of inventions that are geared to help, or preserve, the natural environment. In this article, we’ll take a look at how Canada has implemented such provisions.

Canada’s Patent Rules provide a mechanism for advancing examination for “green technologies”. Examination is the process by which an application for a patent is scrutinized by an Examiner at a patent office, in order to determine whether the application meets the necessary criteria to issue as a patent. The examination process can typically take 2 to 5 years. In select cases it can be shorter, while in others much longer. Therefore, being able to take advantage of an advanced examination process can allow for inventors or companies to possess the enforceable right much sooner.

Rule 84 (1) of the Patent Rules states:

In respect of an application for a patent that is open to public inspection at the Patent Office, the Commissioner must advance out of its routine order the examination of the application on the request of

(b) the applicant, if the applicant files with the Commissioner a statement indicating that the application relates to technology the commercialization of which would help to resolve or mitigate environmental impacts or to conserve the natural environment or natural resources.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Canada saw a 16% increase in the number of environmental technology patents filed between the years 2000 and 2011. While this increase is definitely good news, Canada is still lagging far behind many other countries, such as the UK, which experienced an increase of 63%; Mexico, which experienced an increase of 149%; Brazil, which experienced an increase of 185%; and China, which experienced an increase of a whopping 1040%, all during the same timeframe.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) states that in order to take advantage of the advanced examination process, applicants need to submit a letter that includes:

1. a request for an advanced examination;

2. a statement indicating that the application relates to technology that if commercialized would help to resolve or mitigate environmental impacts or to conserve the natural environment or natural resources; and

3. an early laid open date (only if the request is made before the application has been opened to public inspection, usually 18 months after the filing date).

Typically, once the request for advanced examination of a green technology is processed, the first office action can be expected within 3 months. It is important to remember however, that if time extensions to reply are requested or if the prosecution process is abandoned, the application will be removed from the expedited process and returned to the regular process.

If you have created or invented something relating to the environment or green technologies which you feel may be patentable, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

T: 613-567-0762
E: patents@mbm.com

Authors: Osman Ismaili, Patent Associate

 

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Tips For Startups: How To Make Sure Your IP Is Working For You

Posted on by Debbie Malek

Two things that startups never seem to have enough of are: time and money. It can be difficult to carve out enough of both to properly identify, manage, and protect your intellectual property (IP). Your IP, including your patents, industrial designs and trademarks, is at the center of your company’s value. As a result, protecting your IP is crucial and will give your company the boost it needs to succeed in a competitive marketplace. Knowing your IP is essential to identifying your competitive advantage, focusing your R&D efforts, and creating an innovative company culture. IP should be the main component of your business plan and your pitch to customers and investors as it is normally your main selling point.

As a startup, you already have passion for your business, and you are convinced that you will be successful. Now, in order to apply your passion to the right strategy, you should ask yourself a series of questions to help pinpoint and identify what IP you currently possess and if it is valuable:

  • What you are doing that is new? What new features have you added, or improvements have you made lately?
  • What makes your product better, or faster, or more accurate, or more efficient than your competitor’s products?
  • What features of your product do customers value the most when making purchasing decisions?
  • Is your company name or logo unique in your industry? Did you check to make sure no one else has it registered as a trademark?
  • Have you designed a new product with a distinctive name, product shape, physical design or packaging?
  • Once you choose your name and logo, have you been consistently using it on your products, packaging, marketing materials, your website and your social media? Document the date you first used it!

One way to answer these questions is to formally evaluate your IP, you could use an IP law firm to do it, which is always recommended but you could also try to figure it out yourself by doing some market and competitor research.

Ideas born from your IP evaluation can form the basis for the future direction of your R&D, which will eventually turn into more patents, industrial designs, and trademarks that you will want to protect and leverage going forward.

Now that you have defined your “secret sauce” you can use it in several ways:

  • File a patent to demonstrate that you have a technological advantage important enough that you are willing to invest in a patent to protect it.
  • Gain credibility with financial investors and VCs. Include it in your pitch and highlight it in your business plan.
  • Get your sales and marketing people to highlight the IP incorporated into your products when interacting with customers.
  • Use your IP to develop and foster a culture of innovation in your company. Celebrate inventors to encourage the generation of new ideas.
  • Leverage your IP to form strategic partnerships and alliances to scale up your business or license out your IP for royalty revenue.
  • Build and protect your brand by consistently monitoring your trademarks to make sure no competitors are using them, and cause customers to mistake a competitor’s product for yours.

Your IP is already there. However, you need to take the time to identify it, protect it, then learn how to artfully articulate it to investors and customers to get the most out of it.

For more information, please contact:

T: 613-567-0762
E: general@mbm.com

Author: David Fraser, Patent Agent

 

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Don’t Let Your Trademark Go Up In Smoke: “smoking is cool” Branding Is Prohibited Under Canada’s Cannabis Act

Posted on by Debbie Malek

In Canada, trademark registration is an important form of intellectual property protection for brand-owners as it confers the right to exclude others from using confusingly similar trademarks across Canada. Having said that, brand-owners in the cannabis space looking to register their name or logo as a trademark face a unique challenge; a trademark registration does not mean the trademark itself can be lawfully used in association with cannabis products, accessories, or services in Canada under the Canadian Cannabis Act, SC 2018, c 16 (“Cannabis Act”).

BRANDING RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE CANNABIS ACT

The Cannabis Act has placed strict regulations surrounding the sale and promotion of cannabis products, accessories, and services for the purposes of protecting Canadians, in particular young persons. Since the legalization of cannabis, many Canadians have become familiar with strict packaging restrictions, similar to those required in the sale of tobacco products. What may be less known is that the Cannabis Act imposes rigorous branding and promotional restrictions which go beyond the actual packaging.

Of particular concern with respect to the selection and use of a trademark, cannabis products or any related service cannot be promoted:

  • in a manner that could reasonably be believed to be appealing to young persons;
  • by means of the depiction of a person, character or animal, whether real or fictional; or
  • by presenting it or any of its brand elements in a manner that associates it or the brand element with, or evokes a positive or negative emotion about or image of, a way of life such as one that includes glamour, recreation, excitement, vitality, risk or daring.

(see section 17 of Canada’s Cannabis Act).

Similarly, each province may also have additional restrictions related to cannabis branding. Quebec, for example, a particularly strict province with respect to cannabis branding, is governed under a similar provision which restricts promotion of cannabis in such a way that associates the use of cannabis with a particular lifestyle (see section 53(3) of Quebec’s Cannabis Regulation Act.)

CANNABIS TRADEMARKS SHOULD BE CHOSEN CAREFULLY

In light of the above, careful consideration must be taken when selecting the name and/or logo to be used as a trademark in association with cannabis-related products and services in Canada, as non-compliance can result in a fine as high as $5 million or up to 3 years imprisonment. Therefore, savvy cannabis businesses should recognize these limitations and work within these restrictions when developing a commercial strategy in order to distinguish their brand.

Budding cannabis entrepreneurs should also keep in mind that in addition to the Cannabis Act, trademark applications for registration must be in compliance with the regulations imposed by Trademarks Act and Trademarks Regulations. For instance, it remains to be seen whether a cannabis trademark can be restricted under section 9(1)(j) of the Trademarks Act for being scandalous, obscene or immoral in such a way that would offend a significant segment of the Canadian public. Ideally, it is recommended that cannabis brand-owners seek legal counsel before using or applying to register a trademark to ensure that they are set up for commercial success with a brand strategy that falls within the purview of lawful promotion and branding of cannabis.

 

For more information please contact:

Deborah Meltzer, Trademark Agent & Associate Lawyer
T: 613-801-1077
E: dmeltzer@mbm.com

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Unauthorized Photographs: The Rights Of The People We Capture

Posted on by Debbie Malek

We live in the digital age of smartphones and social media, where the large scale capturing and sharing of photographs has become a global run-of-the-mill form of communication and expression. The rights in these photographs are typically subject to the licensing schemes of the various social media platforms to which they are posted. This is because the authors of these works, the photographers, own copyright in the images they create. However, on the other side of the lens, what frequently gets overlooked are the rights of the people in the photographs as opposed to the ones taking it. This is not an unfamiliar concept. For instance, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have recently made headlines regarding the unauthorized use of their image by various media outlets.

When it comes to celebrities and other public figures, the laws across Canada have established various personality rights to protect these individuals from the exploitation of their image or likeness. That said, the law is less clear as to the particular rights of private citizens who are the subject of an image to which they did not consent. In Canada, the use of an individual’s image can be unlawful where:

(a) an individual’s name, reputation, or likeness is commercially exploited; or

(b) an individual’s right to privacy has been violated

These wrongs are actionable under the tort of appropriation of personality and provincial privacy torts.

COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF AN IMAGE OR LIKENESS

The tort of appropriation of personality most commonly protects the right of a celebrity or other public figure against the use of their image or likeness for a commercial purpose without their consent. This stems from the idea that a person should have the exclusive right to market and/or capitalize on their personality and image. This is of course subject to certain exceptions (e.g., biographies, plays, books, etc.) where the purpose is to provide insight into that individual (see for example Gould Estate v Stoddard Publishing, [1998] O.J. No. 1894 (ONCA)).

The case law has established that to succeed in the tort of appropriation of personality, the following criteria must be met:

1. The use of the image or likeness must be for a commercial purpose (see Athans v Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd. [1977] O.J. No. 2417 (Ontario Supreme Court); and

2. The individual (plaintiff) must be clearly and primarily captured in the image (see Krouse v Chrysler Canada Ltd. et al., 13 C.P.R. (2d) 28 (1973 ONCA))

While this tort is technically available to non-famous people, it is obviously less likely that an image of a person without notoriety would be commercially exploited. That said, with respect to individuals with professional designations, their professional reputation is protected under the right of personality. For instance, in Hay v Platinum Equities Inc. 2012 ABQB 204, an accountant’s signature was unlawfully used to secure financing for a loan and the Court held that professional reputation for commercial exploitation is akin to celebrity name and likeness.

PRIVACY RIGHTS

In Canada, individuals have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is a distinction between “personality” – the exclusive right to use your likeness for commercial gain, and “privacy” – the rights of seclusion and the protection of personal information. These concepts, although often intertwined, are legally distinct; a breach of privacy causes personal harm while an appropriation of personality causes commercial harm.

With respect to privacy rights, in Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (“Tsige”), the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” exists in Ontario. In that case, the defendant had used her access as a bank employee to view the plaintiff’s banking information over 150 times over a 4-year period. The required elements to satisfy the tort were defined as follows:

1. The defendant’s conduct must have been intentional (this includes recklessness);

2. There must be an “intrusion” – the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns; and

3. The invasion must be highly offensive to a reasonable person (i.e., causing distress, humiliation, or anguish).

Additionally, the Court stressed that proof of harm to a recognized economic interest is not an element of the cause of action. This means that no actual damage or commercial exploitation is required in establishing intrusion upon seclusion. It is sufficient that the privacy of the plaintiff was egregiously violated.

In relation to control over a person’s image, over 20 years ago in Aubry c. Vice Versa Publishing Inc. [1998] 1 SCR 591 (“Aubry”), the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the right to one’s own image falls within the right to privacy under section 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. In this case, the defendant published a picture in a magazine of a woman in a public space, with no defamatory implications in the context of the image or magazine content. However, since the individual was clearly identifiable and her permission was not sought prior to publication, a majority on the Court concluded that the freedom of artistic expression did not justify the infringement of the right to privacy.

Although the civil remedy in Aubry is particular to Quebec in light of the broad scope of the Quebec Charter, the Supreme Court’s determination is nevertheless important because it exemplified that the protection of a person’s image forms part of their personal privacy interest.

In Ontario, in Jane Doe 72511 v Morgan, 2018 ONSC 6607, relying on the reasoning in Tsige, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice adopted the tort of public disclosure of private facts. In that case, the defendant was the ex-boyfriend of the plaintiff, who posted unauthorized intimate/nude photos and videos of the plaintiff on a public website that was viewed over 60,000 times. Paramount to this finding was that the act of publication was highly offensive and not of legitimate concern to the public.

CONCLUSION

As referenced in Tsige, legal scholars have written of “the pressing need to preserve ‘privacy’ which is being threatened by science and technology to the point of surrender”. The exponential growth of social media platforms and smartphone usage is generating unprecedented privacy concerns which are outpacing current statutory and common law privacy rights. Until Canadian and provincial laws catch-up, photographers and social media users should understand that what they capture, more importantly who they capture, may, one way or another, intrude on someone’s rights. Regardless, when snapping a photo, photographers should exercise best practice and ask for consent of the people they capture.

 

For more information please contact:

Deborah Meltzer, Trademark Agent & Associate Lawyer
T: 613-801-1077
E: dmeltzer@mbm.com

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Importance of Determining Inventorship Prior to Patent Issuance

Posted on by Debbie Malek

Determining inventorship, prior to patent issuance, can save an applicant the costly procedural and evidentiary burden required for correcting the named inventors post patent issuance. Since Canadian patent law requires that each patent application list the sole inventor(s) of the claimed invention, divisional applications derived from an application having two or more inventors must list only the inventors that contributed to the claimed invention.

Although a patent may still be issued for an application not listing the sole inventor(s) of the claimed invention, the patentee may be required to correct the records of the Patent Office to reflect the sole inventor(s). However, post patent issuance, to correct the records of the Patent Office, the patentee must bring an application to the Federal Court (“Court”). In doing so, the patentee must follow the evidentiary and procedural requirements for removing a named inventor and/or adding an inventor to the named inventors of the issued patent. This was the case in Inguran LLC dba STgenetics v Commissioner of Patents, 2020 FC 338, for which the patentee, STgenetics, brought an application to the Court for an order to remove six of the twelve named inventors from the records of the Patent Office relating to four issued patents.

To obtain the order for removing named inventors, STgenetics had to meet the test outlined in Imperial Oil Resources Ltd v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 1218. The test asks two questions:

 1. Does it appear that one or more of the named inventors have no part in the invention? and

2. Has an affidavit been provided to satisfy the Court that the remaining inventors are the sole inventors?

In order to meet the test, STgenetics provided affidavits from both inventors determined to have contributed to the issued patents and from non-inventors incorrectly named as inventors. The determined inventors deposed that they contributed to the issued patents, and the non-inventors deposed that they did not contribute to the issued patents.

Based on STgenetics’ evidence, the Court determined that STgenetics met the procedural and evidentiary burden required for removing the names of the non-inventors. Accordingly, the Court ordered the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) to vary the records of the Patent Office with respect to the inventorship of the issued patents.

Although STgenetics’ application to the Court was successful, the application and the evidentiary burden to satisfy the Court of the relevant jurisprudential tests and procedural requirements could have been avoided had the inventorship been determined prior to the issuance of the patents. STgenetics, could have simply, prior to receiving the notice of allowance, requested the Commissioner to remove the names of the non-inventors and submitting the affidavits. Had STgenetics done so, it could have saved the time and money spent in pursuing the Court application.

 

For more information please contact:

Jamal Hakimi, Patent Lawyer
T: 613-801-0509
E: jhakimi@mbm.com

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Digital books and ownership rights in the information age

Posted on by Debbie Malek

It is interesting how digital books compare to physical books in this electronic age. The rights users have over physical books have often been likened to the rights we may have over currency. For example, just like we can’t make copies of currency, we can’t make copies of a book protected by copyright – but we can trade a book for something else, loan it to someone, give it away as a gift, or resell it. We can own the physical copy of the book itself, even if we don’t own the right to copy it.

Digital books (aka eBooks) on the other hand seem to present a far more complex set of ownership rights. Not only is it the case that users do not have the ability to do many of the above things with digital content, it may actually be the case that they do not “own” the actual digital book either.

In mid-2019, Microsoft announced that it would cease to provide digital books on the Microsoft Store. In accordance with this move, it also said that it would be deleting user’s existing digital book libraries. While users would be refunded for the purchases they had made, one can’t help but imagine that users would still feel a bit frustrated with this forced sort of refund.

And as history repeats itself, this scenario is no stranger to the law. In 2009 (indeed, a whole decade before the Microsoft matter), Amazon had run into some legal troubles for similarly deleting copies of works by George Orwell from customers’ Kindles. After a teenager sued the company (possibly for having been unable to complete his homework), Amazon settled and promised that it wouldn’t delete content from U.S. users’ devices without their permission.

This blurring of the rights associated with digital content has recently gained even more attention with Macmillan Publishers’ stance on libraries and eBooks. As one of the world’s largest publishing companies, it’s interesting to see Macmillan restricting sales of eBooks libraries in order to prevent them from loaning more than a single copy of a digital book to a single reader at one time. This has resulted in lengthy waiting lists for eBooks at many libraries, something some have called a means to restrict certain classes from obtaining new literature.

The reason Macmillan Publishers is likely able to do this is because digital copies of books actually remain under the ownership of the publishing companies, and are usually only licensed to users, libraries or whoever else. Thus, if a publisher, or even a distributor like Microsoft or Amazon, decides to end the licensing agreement, they can.

As one possible way to circumvent this system, many authors are now choosing to bypass publishing houses altogether, and create exclusively digital content for companies like Amazon directly. This however means that certain works will only be available digitally through certain companies. This may result in people having to obtain a plurality of subscriptions, and has been analogized to requiring subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime in order to watch all the shows you love. Perhaps readers will not though, as long as they can still snuggle up at the end of the day to read their favourite works.

If you are wrestling with a digital ownership issue and would like some assistance, please reach out to MBM today and one of our professionals would be happy to assist you.

T: 613-567-0762
E: general@mbm.com

Authors: Osman Ismaili, Patent Associate

 

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Common Patent Misconceptions – Myth #2

Posted on by Debbie Malek

This article is part of a series on commonly held misconceptions about patents. Many prospective patentees often have unfounded reservations about patenting their inventions. The aim of this series of short articles is to debunk these common myths around patent protection.

Patent Myth #2: I don’t need a patent because I’m the only one with this technology, no one else will be able to enter the market.

This surprisingly common belief is in some ways related to Patent Myth #1. Having a quick read of that article may help with understanding the connection to this piece.

Many startups and even some SMEs often hold the view that because they were the first to come up with a particular technology that fact will somehow serve as a natural barrier to entry for others. While this may be true in some rare cases, these companies often fail to realize that other, often larger entities have well-established R&D departments that, among other reasons, are there to understand competing technologies and, in some cases, learn to reverse engineer them.

In Patent Myth #1, we touched on the case of Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011), where the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) found Microsoft to have infringed the patent of a much smaller Toronto-based company. In that case, the Canadian company, i4i was successful first and foremost because it had a patent for its document editing invention. If i4i had instead chosen not to file a patent, there would have been no infringement even if Microsoft used or copied their technology. At the very least i4i would have been gambling with the time and money they invested in developing their software.

This discussion also ties into the law of trade secrets in that a company certainly could choose to maintain its invention as a trade secret, but it may not always be appropriate. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) website states: “Trade secrets can be very valuable when you have developed new technology, designed original products, created the perfect recipe, or have a gold mine of customer data. However, it may not be the best choice of intellectual property (IP) protection if your competitors can easily reconstruct your creation.” The last sentence is precisely what companies should be thinking about when considering a patent. Even if you are the first to bring something to market, it is important to keep in mind that someone might still be able to dissect and understand it.

Never forget that maintaining a trade secret as a secret has its own challenges, and even something like a disgruntled former employee can put a trade secret into a risk of being publicized. As CIPO states, “Once a trade secret is made public, it loses its business value and legal remedies are complex.” Even if someone breaches an agreement and has to ultimately pay damages, that trade secret can still never go back to being a secret, so its value is irretrievably lost.

One final note relates to the “on sale bar” in the United States. In January 2019, SCOTUS decided in a landmark decision, Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharma USA, 586 U. S. ____ (2019), that “an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art under §102(a).” This means that even if an invention is sold as a trade secret, it could prevent the inventor from later obtaining a patent for it. Many inventors believe they’ll be able to profit from their invention as a trade secret for some years before they file for patent protection, but this approach may be risky, if not dangerous.

Could someone reverse engineer and/or copy your invention? If you think the answer is yes, then it’s likely you should look into obtaining patent protection. Please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

T: 613-567-0762
E: patents@mbm.com

Author: Osman Ismaili, Patent Associate

 

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

The aftermath of the new Canadian Trademark Legislation

Posted on by Debbie Malek

On June 17, 2019, Canada’s new Trademarks Act and Trademarks Regulations came into force. The new Act and Regulations introduced significant changes to Canada’s trademark practice. The implementation of the new Act and Regulations has been challenging and a learning experience for everyone, including trademark owners, practitioners and Canadian Examiners.

We dug deeper into some of the more notable changes to give you a little extra insight:

INCREASED FILING FEES & NICE CLASSIFICATION:

As Canada acceded to the Nice Agreement, Applicants are now required to classify their goods and services according to the Nice Classification system.

The Nice Classification system is an international system, administered by the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO), for classifying goods and services and is comprised of 45 different classes.

Under Canada’s new trademark regime, trademark filing fees are dependent on the number of classes of goods and services contained in the application.

Applicants must be aware that, unlike in other jurisdictions, a trademark application cannot be filed in multiple classes of goods and services with the intention to re-assess the Nice Classes and associated fees later. The filing fees are based on the number of classes of goods and/or services contained in the application at the time of filing, regardless of whether some of those goods or services are deleted at a later date. For this reason, it is important to carefully assess the goods and services and the Nice classes prior to filing the application to ensure all appropriate fees are paid.

Canada’s new government filing fees are:

  • $330 for the first class of goods and/or services; and
  • $100 for each additional class of goods and/or services

NO “USE” REQUIREMENT:

Under the new Act, trademark owners are no longer required to use their trademarks in Canada in order to obtain a registration. In this regard, a “date of first use” is no longer required in an application and applicants do not have to file a Declaration of Use attesting to the fact that use of the trademark has occurred in Canada.

Trademark owners should still be aware that use of a trademark will be an important factor in maintaining protection of the trademark in Canada. If a trademark is not being used in Canada by the third anniversary of the registration date, it can be vulnerable to “non-use cancellation” proceedings.

While the removal of the “use” requirement has simplified the application process, MBM recommends filing for and using your trademark as soon as possible to protect your business and your brand! Trademark owners should also closely monitor the marketplace for any third-party use to proactively safeguard against trademark trolls seeking to register brands that do not belong to them.

REGISTRATION FEES:

Under the new Act, trademark owners are no longer required to pay a government registration fee to obtain registration of the trademark. However, trademark owners should be aware that registration fees must still be paid on applications that were filed prior to June 17, 2019.

RENEWALS:

Under the new Act, a trademark will be valid for a period of 10 years (previously 15 years). Similar to filing fees, the Trademarks Office is now charging renewal fees on a per class basis.

Canada’s new renewal fees are:

  • $400 for the first class of goods and/or services; and
  • $125 for each additional class of goods and/or services.

In addition to increased renewal fees, there is also now a strict renewal window wherein owners can renew their trademarks. The new renewal window is six-months prior to and six-months after the renewal deadline.

Additionally, trademark owners should be aware that any trademarks registered prior to the coming into force of the new Act will require that the goods and services be classified according to the Nice Classification system.

For any registrations that do not have the goods and services classified according to the Nice Classification system, MBM recommends filing a request to classify the goods and/or services as soon as possible to facilitate the renewal payment process.

If goods and services are not classified prior to paying the renewal fee, the Trademarks Office will issue a notice pursuant to Subsection 44.1(1) of the Act, setting out the requirement to group and class the goods and services and if the request is not filed, the Trademarks Office will issue a second notice stating that the registration may be expunged if the goods and services are not furnished within the set timeframe.

NON-TRADITIONAL TRADEMARKS:

Under the new Act, trademark owners can file “non-traditional” trademarks. “Non-traditional” trademarks include: sounds, moving images, holograms, scents, tastes, colour, three-dimensional shapes, textures, modes of packaging goods and positioning of a sign.

Upon a review of the Canadian Trademarks online database, it appears that many brand owners are taking advantage of the ability to file “non-traditional” trademarks, with over 300 “non-traditional” trademarks filed between June 17, 2019 and March 24, 2020.

DIVIDING AND MERGING TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS:

Canada’s new Act allows trademark owners to divide their trademark applications. A divisional application can be filed in order to expedite the registration of the trademark for any goods and services that have not received any objections.

Additionally, owners also now have the ability to merge their trademarks. The new Act states that if a trademark that was previously divided proceeds to registration, this trademark may be merged with the other registration(s) that originated from the initial application.

INHERENT DISTINCTIVENESS:

Under the new Act, one of the most significant changes to the examination of trademarks is that the Registrar now has the ability to refuse a trademark on the ground that it is not inherently distinctive.

While Section 2 of the Act defines “distinctiveness” in relation to a trademark, there is no statutory definition for “not inherently distinctive”. However, the Canadian Trademarks Examination Manual (TEM) has some guidelines with respect to inherent distinctiveness and when a trademark can be refused because it is not inherently distinctive. Some examples of trademarks listed in the TEM that are considered to be not inherently distinctive include:

  • Trademarks which are primarily geographic locations, names, or surnames;
  • Trademarks that consist of one- or two-letters or numbers;
  • Trademarks that consist of a design common to the trade, unless it is depicted in a special or fanciful manner (i.e. a design of grapes on a vine would not be registrable for use in association with wine);
  • Trademarks that are the names of colours in relation to goods that would typically be that colour (i.e. WHITE would not be registrable for use in association with toothpaste);
  • Trademarks that are clearly descriptive in English or French (i.e. FURNITURE STORE/MAGASIN DE MEUBLES would not be registrable in association with the retail sale of furniture);
  • Trademarks that consist of laudatory words and phrases (i.e. WONDERFUL, WORLD’S BEST, ULTIMATE); and
  • Trademarks that serve only to provide general information about the goods or services (i.e. FRAGILE would not be registrable for use in association with labels to be affixed to packages).

Since the new Act came into force, many Examiners are raising objections that, in their preliminary view, trademarks are not inherently distinctive.  The majority of these objections are generally being raised on the basis that the trademark consists of ordinary or generic words and other traders should be able to use these words in the ordinary course of their business.

When issuing a not inherently distinctive objection, Examiners are required to provide evidence to support their objection that the trademark is not inherently distinctive. The evidence provided by the Examiner must be in relation to the goods and services and must be within Canada. In this regard, some issues that are being brought up between practitioners and Examiners is that the trademarks are not always being taken into consideration with the associated goods and services and the Examiner’s evidence is not always within Canada.

Further, while several Examiners are raising objections that trademarks are not inherently distinctive, it may be possible to overcome the objection by either: (1) arguing that the trademark is inherently distinctive (or at least has some degree of inherent distinctiveness); or (2) filing affidavit evidence that the trademark had acquired distinctiveness at the time of filing the application in Canada.

Trademarks can acquire distinctiveness through significant use of the trademark in Canada. When a trademark is said to have acquired distinctiveness it is said to have acquired a secondary meaning and leaves a distinctive impression in the minds of consumers, when considered in association with the goods and/or services. In other words, to establish that the trademark has acquired distinctiveness, the evidence must show that the Canadian public would strongly associate the trademark with the particular goods and services and not any other possible meaning of the word.

At this time, it is difficult to predict when or if an objection that the trademark is not inherently distinctive will be raised, as it appears that this ground of refusal is being interpreted differently. We do note that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has been in open discussions with trademark practitioners and the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC) regarding the frustration and challenges surrounding these objections. Based on the discussions between CIPO, IPIC and trademark practitioners, we anticipate that within the next 1-2 years, there will be some case law, clarification and fine-tuning of the guidelines with respect to these not inherently distinctive objections.

BACKLOG AT CANADIAN TRADEMARKS OFFICE:

Due to the changes in the Act and many systems at the Canadian Trademarks Office, there is a longer than usual delay in the examination of trademark applications. Currently, it is taking between 17 and 22 months to receive a first action from the Trademarks Office. We understand from the Trademarks Office that they are in the process of hiring several new Examiners and within the next 2-3 years, examination of a trademark application should be more in line with the United States Patent & Trademark Office, approximately 7-10 months to receive a first action.

 

For more information, please contact:

T: 613-567-0762
E: trademarks@mbm.com

Author: Kimberly Dunn, Trademark Agent

 

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.
Top Top