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

On February 22, 2023, it was that Google is blocking news content on its platform for under 4% of Canadian users in a five-week test as a potential protest of Bill C-18. While Parliament referred to this secret news blocking test by the tech giant as “,” this reality of Bill C-18 does not come as a surprise to critics who voiced these concerns throughout the legislative process.

Bill C-18, the , was first passed by the House of Commons in April 2022 and aimed to respect online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada. This would provide news publishers with a framework to strike deals with tech giants, such as Google and Meta, to share the revenue they receive when reposting news content from publishers.

Parliament stressed that Bill C-18 will help recoup financial losses sustained by the news media industry in Canada. However, there is great concern as to whether Google and/or Meta will limit or fully shut down its news aggregation services to avoid payments. These concerns are warranted, as Google its Google News outlet in Spain for eight years to avoid paying for links and snippets citing stories from Spanish newspapers and other outlets. Google also conducted similar news blocking tests in response to the attempting to pass a code similar to Bill C-18 which sought to promote negotiations between news publishers and tech giants. Even more recently, Google Google News snippets in Czechia in response to Czech Copyright Act reform seeking to compensate Czech news publishers.

The costs of Bill C-18 to Google and Meta are not insignificant, with the estimating news businesses to receive a total compensation of $329.2 million CAD per annum from digital platforms. Given that both and generate upwards of $100 billion USD per annum, the costs of Bill C-18 appear to be a drop in the bucket for the tech giants. However, the backlash from Google to a lack of input from the Parliamentary Budget Officer as to how this figure was calculated. Parliament consulted the Australian Communication and Media Authority to learn more about its Bill-C18-like legislation implementation in Australia, so the estimates may have been based on Australian data.

Google’s news blocking test in Canada illustrates that the reality of Bill C-18 may go against its very purpose by digital platforms to link to news materials. This will not only limit access to online news content in Canada, but, more significantly, will further drive the losses suffered by Canada’s news media industry. , more than 450 news outlets in Canada have closed, with 64 closures in the past two years. With the second reading of Bill C-18 now in progress at the Senate, Parliament may need to reconsider its legislative approach to avoid further backlash from Google and Meta.

The post The (Not-So) Secret Side of Bill C-18: Google Tests Blocking Online News Content for Canadians appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Egin Kongoli is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Innovation Program.

Canada is getting serious about consumer privacy, or so our lawmakers claim.

Parliament has recognized the public’s need for a data framework that ensures proper transparency and accountability.[i] Ottawa’s response is and the proposed Consumer Privacy Protection Act��(CPPA), meant to govern the future collection, use, and disclosure of personal information for commercial purposes. However, while the law modernizes elements of the privacy framework, it leaves out exceptions for de-identified data practices that undermine the very trust the legislation is meant to foster. Standing tenuously on technological assumptions, the exception creates a wild-west scenario ripe for harmful data practices.��

Under the CPPA, organizations are not required to obtain user consent to de-identify, a process that modifies data so that “an individual cannot be directly identified.”[ii] The legislation creates an offence for re-identification and, as such, seems aware of the risk.[iii] Nonetheless, further exceptions are made for data anonymization, by which an organization “irreversibly and permanently modif[ies] personal information… to ensure that no individual can be identified from the information, whether directly or indirectly, by any means.”[iv] The CPPA excludes the anonymized data from its purview because, by their definition, there is no reasonable prospect of re-identification.

This logic rests on several problematic assumptions. First, the line which separates de-identified and anonymized data is vague and rarely obvious until re-identification occurs. De-identified data is by its nature not meant to be re-identified, and thus anonymous by the government’s definition. Moreover, the law assumes organizations have the technological capabilities to ensure irreversible and permanent anonymization. While identifiers may be removed, many other seemingly innocuous data points can be used to . Research from Oxford recently found that . One might imagine many disturbing consequences, from identity fraud to the cancer patient whose allegedly-anonymous data is used to change their insurance coverage and rates.

How can the disclosure and use of data be monitored if the law excludes anonymized data from regulation? Privacy enforcement may require individuals to come forward with complaints about the misuse of their data.[v] The system thus asks users to not only be aware of their data anonymization (which they never consented to) and its subsequent disclosure (kept secret from them) but to catch the bad actors re-identifying information the regulators turned a blind eye to. Our framework’s release-and-forget de-identification model thus opens the door to potential misuse of personal information that will remain altogether hidden from the regulator’s or public’s view. Where is the transparency or accountability?

While the anonymized exception answers the growing demands of businesses seeking to use personal data, the current state of de-identification practices does not satisfy the standards of the CPPA. The European GDPR includes data that does not contain direct identifiers but is capable of re-identification, “,” as within the scope of the law. That our lawmakers decided against regulating allegedly-anonymous data begs whether their priorities indeed lay with the needs of the public or of commerce.

[i] Bill C-27,��An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts,��1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2022, preamble, para 8.

[ii] Ibid at s 2(1).

[iii] Ibid at s 128.

[iv] Ibid at s 2(1).

[v] Ibid at s 107.

The post Anonymous for Now: Demystifying Data De-Identification appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Ivana Peloza is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was submitted as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

Bill C-18, the , which was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage in April 2022, seeks to ensure that news outlets are fairly compensated for their news content by digital platforms. The bill establishes a framework for bargaining and negotiation between dominant digital intermediaries (DNIs), like Google and Meta-owned Facebook, and eligible news businesses.

Bill C-18 authorizes the to initiate mandated arbitration between an eligible news business and a digital platform or group of digital platforms. Under Section 53 of the Act, the CRTC has the power to compel commercially sensitive and undisclosed editorial material from eligible news businesses under Bill C-18. Section 58 outlines the CRTC’s power to order production of any record, report, electronic data or other document. If the operator or eligible news business fails to provide all assistance that is reasonably required for the CRTC to exercise their powers and perform their duties, the DNI or news business is in breach of subsection 3 of this section.

The CRTC has emphasized that the is designed to maximize transparency and minimize government involvement. According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, the promise of minimal government intervention is ensured by the exemption order outlined in Section 11(1) of the bill. While this criteria may incentivize voluntary commercial agreements, it does not exempt the parties of these pre-existing agreements from the duty to provide information under section 53 or the .

Advocates and critics of Bill C-18 agree that the Canadian news market is in dire need of long-term structural supports in a rapidly evolving digital age. What they disagree on, however, is whether the Online News Act is a solution or a threat to that cause. , for instance, have suggested that Bill C-18 actually poses a more significant threat to the news industry and Canadian democracy press; it gives the government and its regulator dangerously vague powers to intervene in the news sector.

Without a thriving news industry and robust protection of ethical journalism, the foundations of Canadian democracy are jeopardized. There is, regrettably, no entirely harmless solution – to at least some or certain stakeholders and journalistic entities. While there are recommendations that must be considered in regulations, such as an amendment to designate a section of legislation – if not an entirely separate Act within the bill – and a regulatory body to consider the eligibility of freelance journalists and start-up news outlets, to take an anti-regulatory stance is a defeatist approach. Given the nature of how content is generated and the interconnectedness around the world, it’s easy to forget that digital content is not accessible everywhere and to everyone. Forcing entities to enter into negotiations for the sustainability of the larger news ecosystem, therefore, is a more worthwhile approach than attempting to enforce existing (and failing) initiatives such as and or worse yet – doing nothing at all.

The post Bill C-18: Policy Concerns for the Independent Press appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Gregory Hong is an IPilogue Writer and a 1L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The (NIST) has been tasked with promoting “U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology.” On January 26, 2023, NIST released their alongside a suggesting ways to use the AI RMF to “incorporate trustworthiness considerations in the design, development, deployment, and use of AI systems”. Both the framework and playbook are intended to help organizations understand and manage the potential risks and benefits of AI. The framework is also meant to ensure that AI systems are developed, deployed, and used in a responsible and trustworthy manner. The framework is intended to be a flexible and adaptable tool that can be applied to a wide range of AI systems, including those used in various industries such as healthcare, finance, and transportation.

NIST describes a trustworthy AI to have a set of characteristics: valid and reliable, safe, secure, and resilient, accountable and transparent, explainable and interpretable, privacy-enhanced, and fair – with harmful bias managed.

Valid and reliable: Produces accurate and consistent results. Its performance should be evaluated and validated through ongoing testing and experimentation, with risk management prioritizing the minimization of potential negative impacts.

Safe: Does not cause harm to people or the environment and should be designed, developed, and deployed responsibly with clear information for responsible use of the system

Secure and resilient: Maintains confidentiality, integrity, and availability through protection against common security such as data poisoning, and the exfiltration of ��other intellectual property through AI system endpoints.

Accountable and transparent: Provides appropriate levels of information to AI actors to allow for transparency and accountability of its decisions and actions.

Explainable and interpretable: representing the underlying AI systems’ operation and the meaning of its output in the context of its designed functional purposes. Explainable and interpretable AI systems offer information that will help end users understand their purposes and potential impact.

Privacy-enhanced: Protects the privacy of individuals and organizations in compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

Fair – with harmful bias managed: ��NIST has identified three major categories of AI bias to be considered and managed: systemic (broad and ever-present societal bias), computational and statistical (typically due to non-representative samples), and human-cognitive (perceptions of AI system information in deciding or filling in missing information).

AI RMF’s core is organized around four specific functions to help organizations address the risks of AI systems in practice: Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage.

Govern: This includes establishing policies, procedures, and standards for AI systems, key decision-makers, developers, and end-users.

Map: AI RMF is intended to contextualize and frame risks by identifying the system's components, data sources, and external dependencies, as well as to understand how the system is used and by whom.

Measure: AI RMF evaluates the potential risks and benefits of the AI system by assessing the system's vulnerabilities and potential social impacts.

Manage: AI RMF allocates risk resources to mitigate identified risks and continuously monitor the system and its environment by establishing monitoring processes and procedures to detect and respond to incidents, as well as updating controls as needed.

NIST’s AI risk management framework is a voluntary but very important prompt for organizations and teams who design, develop, and deploy AI to think more critically about their responsibilities to the public. Understanding and managing the risks of AI systems will help to enhance trustworthiness, and in turn, cultivate public trust in AI – a critical part in AI adoption and advancement.

The post NIST Releases their AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 appeared first on IPOsgoode.

M. Imtiaz Karamat is an IP Osgoode Alumnus and Associate Lawyer at Deeth Williams Wall LLP. This article was originally posted on�� on August 10, 2022.

On July 14, 2022, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) provided its����in response to a consultation launched by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) on proposed��Regulations for the Examination of Documents Stored on Personal Digital Devices��(the Regulations).

The Regulations relate to��An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act,��2016, which strengthens safeguards around the examination of personal digital devices by CBSA officers and other border officials. The Regulations are meant to come into force as soon as possible following Royal Assent of Bill S-7 and would prescribe legally-binding controls for CBSA officers’ examination of personal digital devices. The CBSA opened the Regulations for����in early April, with submissions due by July 15, 2022.

In its submission, the OPC notes that the Regulations, as currently drafted, address some of its concerns for border officers examining personal devices, such as (i) specifying the types of information that must be recorded by examining officers; and (ii) requiring officers to take “necessary steps” to ensure only documents stored on the device are accessible during examination. The OPC recommends that the Regulations be further enhanced to build on these elements and add other features that are not addressed in the current proposal, including the following:

1. Note-Taking Requirements: The Regulations already require examining officers to record certain information when examining personal digital devices and the OPC proposes to build on this by requiring officers to note (A) if the officer changes their rationale for examining the device during the investigation; (B) the reason(s) why a particular document was examined; (C) any relevant communication between the officer and traveler; and (D) whether the search was resultant or not, and further steps taken after making this determination.
2. Disabling Network Connectivity: The OPC proposes that the Regulations should expressly impose technical limitations to ensure the scope of the examination is limited to locally stored documents, such as requiring the activation of “airplane mode”, deactivating any WiFi connection, and ensuring the device is not sharing a connection with another device through Bluetooth or otherwise.
3. Password Collection and Retention: The OPC considers passwords to be sensitive personal information when paired with other identifiers or matched with the device it unlocks. Therefore, it recommends that the Regulations add express controls around password collection, such as not retaining passwords when an examination is non-resultant.
4. Solicitor-Client Privilege. The OPC recommends that the Regulations be amended to��include the CBSA’s current policy requirements for dealing with solicitor-client privilege and other types of sensitive information of this nature.

The post Office Of The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada Responds To Proposed Regulations For Examining Personal Digital Devices At Canadian Borders appeared first on IPOsgoode.

This semester, I had the opportunity to participate in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property (IP) and Technology Law Intensive Program. The program involves a 10-week placement as a legal intern to gain real-world experience in IP law. I had the opportunity to be placed at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO). CIPO is a special operating agency of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada (ISED) and is responsible for the administration of intellectual property in Canada.

As a student, I worked with the Policy, International Affairs, and Research Office (PIRO), which is part of the Corporate Strategies and Services Branch (CSS) at CIPO. PIRO provides advice and guidance on policy, regulatory, international, and economic issues to CIPO’s Executive Office and the Deputy Minister and Minister of ISED. PIRO is divided into three teams: Policy and Regulatory Affairs Office (PRAO), International Relations Office (IRO) and the Economic Research and Strategic Analysis Unit. If you didn’t already notice – yes, the federal government has an affinity for acronyms; I learned this on day one of my placement!

My main role was to conduct research to support the PIRO team. I researched intellectual property trends in free trade agreements and identified areas where negotiations are focused. While my main focus was on trade agreements which Canada is party to – including Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) – I also learned about the negotiations and IP standards set in other regions of the world by other agreements such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the recent African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

My research was also related to meetings that I attended throughout the semester, where I was not only exposed to various areas in international intellectual property law but also to issues the Canadian government is facing regarding implementation of recent trade agreements. For example, I had the opportunity to learn about the process CIPO is taking to implement patent term adjustment obligations as required under Article 20.90 of the CUSMA. It was fascinating to sit-in on discussions of the most current issues that the office is facing as well as being introduced to topics that would never be discussed in the classroom.

I further had the opportunity to attend various meetings on behalf of CIPO’s PIRO team. This includes those held by the Intellectual Property Centre of Expertise (IPCE), an organization established as part of Canada’s national IP strategy in order to provide IP advice and educational support across the federal government. Discussions included considerations that need to be taken when conducting research and the role of federal servants in federal research as dictated by the Public Servants Inventions Act (PSIA). Not
only was this an opportunity to learn about a career of IP in the public sector, but I was also given hands-on experience on how to create effective memoranda when communicating information to the chief executive officer – something that is done regularly as a CIPO analyst.

Working as a student at CIPO has been an incomparable experience. Not only was the work unique, but it was a great skill-building challenge to work independently in areas where I am inexperienced – especially in the remote environment. I want to thank my supervisors, Shawn Tippins and Zorn Pink, who provided me with numerous opportunities to engage with the department. In addition to what I learned from the work, I have gained valuable mentors and lasting relationships. Although I wasn’t able to meet them in person, the team provided a warm and welcoming environment where I felt comfortable asking questions and participating in discussions. I look forward to applying the skills I’ve learned into my career and hope future students will take advantage of this opportunity as well.

The post A Semester at CIPO - My IP Intensive Experience appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by luchschenF ()

Emily Xiang is an IPilogue Writer, the President of the Intellectual Property Society of Osgoode, and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

Decommissioning is the Future

In the energy sector, decommissioning refers to the practice of dismantling energy installations at the end of their life cycles when they no longer satisfy required standards of safety, security, regulation, economic viability, ethical considerations, or environmental integrity. This process may also involve removing, recycling, remanufacturing, storing, or disposing of specific compounds. Nuclear energy, coal and gas-fired energy, and renewable energy are currently the facing decommissioning. For example, wind turbines typically have a lifespan of approximately . As the lifespan of first-generation turbines comes to an end, new decommissioning issues in the renewable energy sector is making room for new patent opportunities as well. In some countries, old turbine blades are being repurposed for their strength and stability to . Some are also being re-developed or re-applied to extract fiberglass and other reusable materials from old blades, with a view to recycle them for future use in new turbines.

Current Challenges with Decommissioning

Unfortunately, decommissioning existing energy infrastructures in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner comes with its fair share of challenges, many of which public and private stakeholders alike have overlooked. For instance, decommissioning policymakers will need to turn their minds to the , or the handling, transportation, reuse, recycling, and disposal of . The process of decommissioning is also sure to incur costs, but to execute their decommissioning projects effectively. There are also several associated with either restoring decommissioned sites to their original condition or preparing them for subsequent use. Moreover, the of many infrastructure sites raises logistical challenges concerning the mobilization of equipment and resources.��

Opportunities for Patents in the Decommissioning Sector

Patents form one avenue available to protect innovations that may address some of the current challenges related to decommissioning in the energy sector. Moreover, various mechanisms exist for expediting the application process for innovations that serve a particular purpose. For instance, , including an advanced examination of green technologies that help resolve or mitigate environmental impacts. Patent applicants that seek to address current environmental concerns with decommissioning may find themselves on a fast-tracked requisition course at no additional cost.��

However, the practice of regularly maintaining and renewing patents often comes with ongoing costs. Patent applicants and holders should be mindful of how their IP rights can be aligned with commercially profitable decommissioning activities worldwide to mitigate costs. , patent applications for inventions related to decommissioning may first be filed in countries such as Canada or the UK, where decommissioning activities are increasing and expedited avenues of examination for green technologies are currently available. Meanwhile, applications in other patenting jurisdictions in which energy infrastructures are still being developed or are still not yet nearing the end of their lifespans may be allowed to follow ordinary examination courses.��

Conclusion

��As older generation energy infrastructures near the end of their lifespans, the need for comprehensive decommissioning policies and novel innovations will only increase. Until recently, many of the challenges associated with decommissioning were , with stakeholder interests moreso focused on new builds or retrofit projects. Careful planning on the part of both operators and interested parties on the IP front will be essential in ensuring efficient and effective decommissioning projects.

The post Abandoned Pipelines and Turbine Graveyards: The Role of Patents in an Aging Energy Sector appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Source: Screenshot of the Zoom Panel

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

��

On November 24, 2021, the Osgoode Emerging Technology Association (OETA) hosted an interactive panel discussion with Professors and , led by OETA president and co-founder Murad Wancho.

from the Osgoode Fintech & Blockchain Association, OETA was founded in Spring 2020 and has quickly grown in popularity. As an OETA executive, I am honoured to share details of this informative event delivered by my dedicated colleagues.

Despite the fast-approaching exam season, the virtual event had an excellent turn-out of students and legal community members. The panel garnered traction preceding the event, with participants eagerly sending in questions on topics ranging from concerns to the future of (“NFTs”). Wancho began by thanking participants and snapping a lovely photo of everyone in the call (as seen above). Everyone rushed to turn on their cameras in time. I regrettably was too slow (or maybe Wancho was too fast!) This spontaneous moment of collaboration and engagement served as a fun icebreaker before introducing the esteemed guests.

Professor is an internationally renowned legal theorist and an Osgoode faculty member since 1982. His research interests include politics, constitutional law, and torts, and he teaches a wide range of courses. Hutchinson also authored an on the intersection between cryptocurrencies and the law, .

Professor has been at Osgoode since 2020. He is a research affiliate at for Internet and Society and a Research Fellow at the based at the University of Toronto. His research lies at the intersection of law, technology, and human rights. Penney recently designed and is currently instructing “” at Osgoode.

Cryptocurrency was the main topic of interest, along with the ever-prevailing questions surrounding its future. This form of decentralized digital currency has been around for but is growing in mainstream popularity. With a show of hands, over half of the participants expressed owning or wanting to own some cryptocurrency.

Hutchinson shared details on his upcoming book and his thoughts on regulation. While no one can accurately predict the future of cryptocurrency, Hutchinson discussed the merit in theorizing unique regulatory approaches to the decentralized system(s). and self-regulation were of notable interest. Many participants asked whether further external regulations would detrimentally affect the appeal and use of cryptocurrencies. The implications of overarching regulatory actions, such as securities or tax, are looming realities of NFTs and cryptocurrency, as we are now witnessing in multiple regions, Penney shared the sentiment of cryptocurrency as a speculative asset that likely cannot succeed without further mainstream support and usage. He also explored the environmental impacts of cryptocurrency , as crypto- utilizes large amounts of energy. Remarking on China’s recent , Penney expressed that some major cryptocurrency players have simply migrated their mining practices elsewhere.

The conversation shifted to career guidance within the legal technology field. This discussion was particularly interesting for 1L students developing their legal paths. Both professors offered pertinent advice on professional development, emphasizing networking. Penney highlighted the importance of reaching out to tech companies for any legal work available. Companies are increasingly incorporating emerging technologies within their operations, such as and algorithms, which may require legal expertise to ensure legal compliance. As innovative technologies emerge, so will the demand for technology lawyers.

Following the event, Professor Penney added, “In the coming years, emerging technologies like cryptocurrency and NFTs will pose a range of complex challenges for law, policy, and broader society. This was an excellent panel discussion, and OETA is showing great leadership in bringing students and faculty together to discuss and debate.”

While no one can ever fully predict the future of cryptocurrency and NFTs, both Penney and Hutchinson provided insightful perspectives. They both have extensive work related to technology that can help us theorize when looking forward. The panel elicited strong engagement and interactive feedback from participants. It was refreshing to learn more about technology law outside of the classroom setting and see different perspectives and interests within the field. I encourage everyone to explore the work of both professors and follow the OETA’s socials below for more information about our next event!

OETA Socials:

LinkedIn:

Twitter:
Facebook:
Instagram:

The post Osgoode Emerging Technology Association Panel with Professors Allan Hutchinson and Jon Penney 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.

As current and prospective intellectual property (IP) owners around the world continue to find themselves in a difficult situation as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, many may be challenged to adhere to the deadlines and procedures that must be followed in order to protect their IP rights. Many IP offices around the world, including the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), have responded to these challenges and demonstrated flexibility in order to enable IP owners to comply. A full list of the measures adopted by various international IP offices can be found on the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) . Information on changes to services and operations, international filings, and frequently asked questions on the effects of COVID-19 on patents, trademarks and industrial designs are available on the page.

Below you will find a brief explanation of some of the modified procedures for patent applicants in Canada. However, it is important to note that given the fact-specific nature of patent prosecution, the information gathered here, and provided on , should not be considered legally binding. ��More information related to and are available on CIPO’s website. In all instances, applicants should review the Patent Rules, and/or consult with a registered patent agent for more information relevant to their specific cases.

If applicants need additional time to act beyond the designated period, they may be able to request an extension of time prior to the expiry of a time limit under subsection 3(1) of the However, some deadlines cannot be extended, and others have prescribed limits to extensions of times. It is essential to review the Patent Rules or consult with a for more information.

Information Related to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) deadlines:

It is also important to note that extensions of time periods under subsection 78(1) of the Patent Act in relation to designated days under subsection 78(2) have no effect on international procedures under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). These time periods are not extended as a result of designated days under subsection 78(2). For information regarding filing a PCT international application, and possible extensions of time, it is advised that applicants consult WIPO and the March 2020 and April 2020 editions of the . This newsletter contains a section with entitled Practical Advice about possible remedies in the case of missed time limits where the PCT Office with which an action needs to be taken is exceptionally closed, or if the applicant’s or agent’s company/firm is forced to close temporarily.

If applicants have disclosed their invention to the public before filing a patent application in Canada, and the last day of the 12-month grace period falls on one of the designated days, CIPO encourages applicants make every effort to file a patent application in Canada before the expiry of the grace period either electronically, in person, by fax or by mail. CIPO also strongly cautions applicants from relying on subsection 78(1) of the to extend the grace period and recommends consulting a registered patent agent for advice on this issue.

Legislation Takes Precedence and Consult Your IP Agent:

If there are inconsistencies between the information provided here and/or on CIPO’s website and the applicable legislation, the legislation must be followed. The information provided reflects CIPO’s interpretation of the legislation and should not be relied upon for legal purposes or business decisions. CIPO recommends you consult a registered patent agent who can advise you on your particular situation.

Written by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO)

The post Impact of COVID-19 on Intellectual Property system in Canada appeared first on IPOsgoode.