Category Archives: Intellectual property

Canada, Intellectual property, Patents

Patent Term Adjustment is finally coming to Canada

The Canadian government is proposing modifications to the Patent Rules to finally introduce a Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) system[1]. The PTA will provide an additional term for patents for unreasonable delays in their issuance. The PTA system is an obligation deriving from the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) that entered into force on July 1, 2020.

This new PTA system will take effect on January 1, 2025, and it will apply to Canadian patent applications filed on or after December 1, 2020 that have suffered unreasonable delays in their issuance. An unreasonable delay is defined as a delay in issuance of more than five years from the filing date or three years from the examination request date, whichever is later, with certain exclusions.

Continue reading »
Canada, Copyrights, Intellectual property, IP Litigation

Blacklock’s Reporter v Canada (Attorney General) and Password Sharing for Research Purposes

Social media phones

In its decision in 1395804 Ontario Ltd (Blacklock’s Reporter) v Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court reaffirmed the broad nature of the Copyright Act’s (“Act”) fair dealing exception for research and made clear that the licit acquisition and valid use of a password does not constitute the circumvention of a technological protection measure (“TPM”). In coming to its decision, the Court considered three main issues: rectification, fair dealing, and technological protection measures. The Court also relied heavily on a previous case, 1395804 Ontario Ltd, Operating as Blacklock’s Reporter v AGC (“Department of Finance”), in which the same plaintiff, Blacklock, similarly alleged copyright infringement against another federal department.

Continue reading »
Canada, Copyrights, Intellectual property

Alberta et al v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2024 FC 292 and the Voluntary Copyright Tariff Regime

Copyright sign cut-out on an urban background.

The Federal Court recently released its decision in Alberta et al v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2024 FC 292, in which the Court confirmed that Copyright Board-approved tariffs are voluntary for users, upheld the statutory nature of copyright law, and affirmed freedom of speech protections afforded by parliamentary privilege. Continue reading to learn more about the importance of this Federal Court decision which followed the clear path laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada in its relatively recent copyright law jurisprudence.

Continue reading »
Analysis, Copyrights, Intellectual property

Doan v Clearview Inc and the Identification of Class Members

woman in front of digital tech

The Federal Court recently released its decision in Doan v Clearview Inc, 2023 FC 1612, in which the Court distinguished a situation where there is no basis in fact for proving that two or more class members can be identified for the sake of certifying a proceeding as a class action and a situation where it is merely difficult to identify said class members. Significantly, this case involved a situation where a company potentially ingested publicly available photographs online to aid the use of their technology, which is a circumstance that may become more commonplace with the ever increasing presence of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in all facets of everyday life. Continue reading to learn about how the Court’s decision in this case could have long lasting effects on the ability of individual plaintiffs to have actions filed against AI-related companies turned into class actions.

Continue reading »
Analysis, Copyrights, Intellectual property

Voltage Holdings, LLC v Doe #1 and Evidentiary Requirements in Copyright Infringement

light bulb cloud

The Federal Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Voltage Holdings, LLC v Doe #1, in which the court affirmed the minimum evidentiary requirements to establish direct and authorizing copyright infringement and clarified the extent to which an adverse inference may be drawn in the context of online copyright infringement.

Continue reading »