Trends, analysis and insights in IP Law
Nicolas Charest, Eliane Ellbogen and Simon Hitchens suggest how brand owners can navigate the various challenges they are likely to face when using, protecting and enforcing their trademarks in relation to the metaverse.
Click here to read the complete article on Managing IP.
Learn more about our IP Practice.
UPDATE: On April 14, 2022, the Minister of Health announced that the federal government will not proceed with amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations introducing new pharmacoeconomic factors and requiring that price and revenue information be reported net of all adjustments. The federal government will proceed with amendments establishing a new basket of comparator countries, with a coming-into-force date of July 1, 2022. For more information, see our Life Sciences Bulletin on the Minister’s announcement.
_________________________
This article provides an update on each of these cases and highlights the growing body of jurisprudence questioning the PMPRB’s price control reasoning.
Continue reading
(French version available at bottom of article)
The past year has brought forward several important decisions in Canada trademark law. From depreciation of goodwill claims, objections founded on bad faith and lack of distinctiveness, several cases have highlighted certain challenges that trademark owners may face in enforcing their rights.
Continue reading
(French version available at bottom of article)
True to its continental European heritage, Canada has a strong regime for the protection of moral rights. This includes the inalienable right of creators to be associated with their work as its author and to protect its integrity, notwithstanding any assignment of economic rights. These rights have been recognized in Canada under the Copyright Act (the “Act”) since 1931 and have been repeatedly recognized in past decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada1.
As reported in an earlier ANGLE post, we discussed how 2021 saw a number of patent office developments with regard to whether a non-human entity could be considered an inventor under various patent regimes. Prior to 2021, several patent offices had considered this issue and found that A.I. could not be considered an inventor. In 2021, however, an Australian Court found that a non-human “inventor” is not inconsistent with inventorship under Australian law and South Africa issued a patent designating an A.I. system as the inventor.
It would appear at the end of 2021 that some patent offices were trending towards recognizing a non-human entity, like A.I. based technology, as an inventor. Could this trend continue?
Maybe not. With a decision just before Christmas of 2021 from European authorities, any such trend may have been stopped in its tracks.
Continue reading