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.
_______________________
In December 2021, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (the “PMPRB”) and the Minister of Health issued two updates regarding the Regulations Amending the Patented Medicines Regulations (the “Amendments”) and the new PMPRB Guidelines (the “New Guidelines”). These notably include a further deferral of the coming-into-force date of the Amendments. The updates, along with the Federal Court of Appeal’s (“FCA”) July 2021 decision in Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 157 (“Alexion”), may have important implications for pharmaceutical patentees in Canada as they implement or revise their pricing strategy for 2022 and beyond.
NFTs, Intellectual Property, and Art: An Overview in Three Parts (Part 3 of 3)
This article is part of a three-part series on NFTs:
- Part 1: What are NFTs and Where Do They Derive their Value?
- Part 2: NFTs and IP Law
- Part 3: NFTs and the Digital Art Marketplace
In the first and second parts of our series on NFTs,[1] we discussed where NFTs derive their value and what this new breed of digital tokenization means for IP-rights creators, holders, and users.
In this third and final instalment, we look at the history of NFTs from an artistic perspective and what their emergence means for the world of digital art.
Continue readingNFTs and Intellectual Property: An Overview in Three Parts (Part 2 of 3)
This article is part of a three-part series on NFTs:
- Part 1: What are NFTs and Where Do They Derive their Value?
- Part 2: NFTs and IP Law
- Part 3: NFTs and the Digital Art Marketplace
In the first part of our series on NFTs,[1] we discussed what an NFT is and what “ownership” of an NFT provides. You’ll recall that a non-fungible token is a unique blockchain-based “token” that consists of a chain of digital references to a specific intangible asset (e.g., digital files encoding music, art, video, icons, etc.).
In this instalment, we consider what NFTs could mean for IP rights creators, owners, and users.
Continue readingNFTs, Intellectual Property and Art: An Overview in Three Parts (Part 1 of 3)
This article is part of a three-part series on NFTs:
- Part 1: What are NFTs and Where Do They Derive their Value?
- Part 2: NFTs and IP Law
- Part 3: NFTs and the Digital Art Marketplace
Earlier this year, something called an “NFT” sold for $69 million USD at auction.[1] This was likely the first time most people had ever heard the term “NFT.” From that point forward, discussions of various NFTs were everywhere; as a result, they entered mainstream consciousness, much like Bitcoin had nearly ten years ago. In fact, NFT or “non-fungible token” was named word of the year for 2021.[2]
Artists, musicians, and other creatives now saw in their work the potential for monetization. Investors woke up to the value of digital art assets. Indeed, in the first half of 2021, NFT transactions totalled in the billions.
Despite their near ubiquity, it is unclear to many what NFTs are and what role they play in the digital marketplace. Just as it may be unwise for investors, collectors, and creators to ignore the burgeoning NFT industry, it may be equally unwise for those same people to ignore potential issues arising from this new asset class. Even more unclear is what, if anything, these new digital assets mean for the users and owners of intellectual property (“IP”) rights.
This series of articles tries to demystify NFTs and discuss what impact they may have for creators, users, and owners of IP rights. We aim to shed light on the intersection of technology, the creative industries, and IP law that arises with NFTs.
In our first article, we will discuss the nature of NFTs. In our second article, we will discuss the impact of NFTs on IP rights holders. In our final article, we will discuss the applicability of NFTs in the world of digital art.
Continue readingFederal Court of Canada provides narrow interpretation of the scope of Patent Agent Privilege
One does not need to be a legal scholar to know that confidential communications between lawyers and their clients for the purpose of seeking and giving legal advice are generally privileged. The so-called “solicitor-client” privilege is a cornerstone of law and allows clients and their lawyers to freely discuss legal issues without unintended disclosures. Thus, apart from certain exceptions, Canadian courts will not compel production of privileged communications such as emails, letters and reports exchanged between clients and their lawyers for the purpose of legal advice.
For years, this special treatment did not attach to communications between clients and their patent agents. This was problematic because patent agents often provide equally strategic and sensitive advice and opinions in the specific area of patents. As a result, it was common practice to channel such communications through lawyers to shroud these under solicitor-client privilege.
Continue reading