Tasks

Students will be considered in two broad categories:

• One student will be part of an interdisciplinary �첥��Ƶ research team;
• Additional positions are available for further intellectual property research

Eligibility

To be eligible, you must be currently enrolled as a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

All applicants must possess strong grades, exemplary organizational skills, be proficient in legal research and writing, and have a strong interest in intellectual property law.

Term

May 2022 to August 2022, with a possibility of continuing on for the 2022/2023 academic year.

The successful candidates will receive compensation and should be available to work full-time.

Application Procedure

To apply, please submit:

1. A cover letter;
2. A copy of your resume;
3. A copy of your grades (can be unofficial grades; please include any previous degrees); and
4. A sample of your written work on any topic of your choice (please limit to 3-5 pages).

to��iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca��by��April 8, 2022.

We thank all applicants in advance, only those students who will be interviewed will be contacted.

The post CALL FOR APPLICATIONS - Summer 2022 Research Assistants appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Pixabay ()

Jasmine Yu is an��IPilogue��Writer and a��1L JD Candidate at the University of Toronto.

��

After numerous delays over two years, amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations, which governs Canada’s Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (), is finally set to come into force this year, on — at least for now.

Who is the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board?

The PMPRB is a Canadian that regulates the prices of patented pharmaceuticals to avoid excessive pharmaceutical prices. The board’s objective is to balance encouraging pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) investment with the public health interest of reducing pharmaceutical prices for consumers.

The PMPRB derives its legal authority partly from the , which specifies the information and documents patentees must provide to the Board, price requirements for drugs sold in Canada, and more.

Why Amend?

The PMPRB saw it fit to introduce changes to its legal framework because it was under the current scheme — Canadian patented drug prices were the third highest globally, while pharmaceutical R&D investment has declined.

The Amendments

The PMPRB first published the amendments on . The first substantive revision to the Regulations since the Board’s establishment in 1987, it will bring major changes to the PMPRB’s current legal framework.

There are :

First, the amendments added three new price regulatory factors to consider whether a patented drug’s price is excessive.

Second, the amendments updated the list of comparator countries, whose drug prices serve as a “benchmark” to establish the range of prices that the pharmaceutical companies find acceptable for their patented medicines. According to the PMPRB, the updated countries have similar consumer protection policies, economic wealth, and marketed medications as Canada. The United States, for example, was removed for having vastly different consumer protection priorities — its drug prices are 247% higher than Canada’s.

Third, there were changes in patentees’ pricing and sales reporting requirements. For instance, the reporting requirement was reduced for medicines at a low risk of excessive pricing, such as veterinary drugs and generics.��

The amendments, once in effect, will apply to all drugs issued a drug identification number (DIN) on or after the amendments’ publication — August 21, 2019. Those that received a DIN before this date must still comply with certain other provisions.

A double-edged sword?

The PMPRB views that these amendments will have a and decrease total spending on patented medicines by 5.8% over the next 10 years. These changes are perhaps much needed, as Canada is the only developed country in the world with universal healthcare that . Meanwhile, Canadians pay the highest price for generic drugs in the world and the second-highest prices per capita for prescription drugs — after the US. en Canadians cannot afford their prescription drugs.��

However, there are also opposing voices. Lobby groups, such as , argue that these amendments will have significant negative impacts R&D investment in Canada and on the number of new drugs available to Canadians and on R&D investment in Canada.

IMC and several Canadian pharmaceutical companies brought a judicial review application to challenge numerous provisions. The Federal Court of Canada, in Innovative Medicines Canada v Canada, , struck down subsection 3(4) of the amendments as it was ultra vires the . In a separate case, the Quebec Superior Court declared section 4(4) invalid and unconstitutional.[1]

A group of physicians also voiced their opposition in an . Their arguments mirror that of IMC: the proposed regulations will make Canada an unattractive market for companies launching new drugs, resulting in medications that could alleviate suffering being denied access to Canadians.

Conclusion

Much like how the original intentions of the PMPRB did not actualize into tangible results, and hindsight revealed flaws in its original policy, the actual consequences of these new amendments may not surface immediately. Canadian Pharmacare policy certainly seems to require an iterative process, as numerous stakeholders and market factors are at play. We perhaps need to examine the faults in Canada’s current patchwork system of private and public insurance plans for potential solutions — to strike a balance between affordable medicine and a vibrant R&D environment.

[1] Merck et al, c Le Procureur Général du Canada,��Québec Superior Court File No. 500-17-109270-192.

The post The Final Countdown? The Upcoming Changes to the Patented Medicines Regulations appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Marvin Meyer ()

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

��

As I searched for a topic for this blog post, I encountered a common theme: the Canadian technology sector is constantly asking for more action from the Canadian government aimed at fostering innovation in the community. Whether creating laws to help govern start-ups, eliminating laws to encourage innovation, or collaborating with other countries to combine resources, the sector alleges the Canadian government is missing vital opportunities to benefit Canadians.����

One of my most recent blog covered the intellectual property, technology, and energy platform points from the Liberal Party and Green Party. Many share the view that both of these parties, and in fact every party, lacked points in these areas. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government have been in the news for making announcements to help the “energy revolution” but failing to implement effective measures.

I have outlined below a few sectors which need innovation to expand. I hope to leave readers informed enough to form their own opinions on what government action is necessary and to pique their interest in what happens next and what other sectors need fixing.

Climate Change

The importance of climate change has become clear over the last decade and the issue played a major role in the most recent Federal election. Trying to cut down fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions, the Canadian innovation and technology sectors look to innovators to patent new, less wasteful creations.

In December 2020, the Government of Canada released a new climate plan: “.”. The plan states that Canada will exceed its 2030 Paris Agreement emissions reductions goals and lay a foundation for net-zero emissions by 2050. However, , an independent scientific analysis that tracks governments’ climate action plans, has deemed Canada’s plans to be “.”

To effectively combat climate change, Canada must invest more into innovation and intellectual property to create new jobs and effective methods of reducing emissions. Investment is necessary to become a leader of the “.” Put simply by : “.

The Pharmaceutical Sector

Another major global crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, has illustrated Canada’s strengths and weaknesses in the pharmaceutical industry. According to the : “.” In their , Canada earned a grading level of D in patents. This grade is reflected by Canada’s lack of investment into COVID-19 vaccine research. Prime Minister Trudeau even the lack of effort and vowed to make change.

In a recent article, and offer a solution to this issue for when the next global pandemic arrives: “.” Edwards and Morgan view the current Canadian policies as playing well politically but failing to drive innovative intellectual property in the pharmaceutical sector.

Research & Development (R&D)

Joel Bilt points out that Canada is the only G7 country “.” This decline is one of the instances where the community is asking the government to eliminate laws to allow the innovation sector to grow. Bilt writes: “.” Currently, most Canadian innovators are looking internationally to patent ideas, and . Positively, ideas are growing and more Canadian inventors need patents. However, a growing number of these inventors are not using the domestic patent system.

It is no secret that Canada’s R&D has experienced a in the last few decades. The question is what the country can do now, and in the future, to help the domestic R&D sector grow and expand. Whether by creating accessible paths to more patents, increasing education and funding, or an alternative route, it is up to the Government of Canada to act.

The post Current or Ongoing? An Interesting Trend in Intellectual Property News appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Eligibility

To be eligible, you must be currently enrolled as a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

All applicants must possess strong grades, exemplary organizational skills, be proficient in legal research and writing, and have a strong interest in intellectual property law.

Term

May 2021 to August 2021, with a possibility of continuing on for the 2021/2022 academic year.

The successful candidates will receive compensation.

Application Procedure

To apply, please submit:

1. A cover letter;
2. A copy of your resume;
3. A copy of your grades (can be unofficial grades; please include any previous degrees); and
4. A sample of your written work on any topic of your choice (please limit to 3-5 pages).

to��iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca��by��March 19, 2021.

We thank all applicants in advance, only those students who will be interviewed will be contacted.

The post CALL FOR APPLICATIONS - Summer 2021 Research Assistants appeared first on IPOsgoode.

This post elaborates on the concept of criminal theft of IP, which I discussed at length in a with respect to software code, in the form of scientific research. In laboratory science, it is customary to keep a , which details all research conducted, including methodologies, applied results, and interpretations. The notebooks are the ultimate reference for raw, unaltered data, and are essential for troubleshooting and the transfer of knowledge within labs between experiments. Upon leaving a lab, graduate students and lab technicians typically leave their notebooks in the lab of the principal investigator (PI), who is the recipient of grant funding for the research project. However, the question of IP ownership becomes murkier when the PI is the individual looking to take possession of their notebooks and materials upon leaving an institution, .

With available in North America for public research, scientists are very secretive and protective of their results, as they are all striving to publish novel, groundbreaking work and posture themselves to procure funding. Thus, it stands to reason that Dr. Mikovits would want to take her work with her so that she could continue to continue her progress and publish her results elsewhere. However, in instances of potential IP theft, is the criminal court the proper venue for these matters?

The State of Nevada has suggested, despite Dr. Mikovits’ initial arrest, that no, these matters should be resolved by civil action. However, it has been suggested that the prosecutors withdrew the charges as a result of the of the CEO of WPI. Thus, the question of the criminality of such alleged IP theft may come up again in the future, particularly with the of the realm of science that is the result of scarce funding.

Even in Dr. Mikovits’ case, it is unclear that the criminal charges should have been withdrawn seven months after the charges were laid. Despite being a leading investigator, she was the employee of a research institution, relying heavily on their staff and equipment (not to mention the salary that she was paid). Although she should be afforded some sort of protection for her time and work, institutions should have guarantees as well. Most public research grants are administered to the individual under the condition that they are that moderates the funding process. Thus, the institution retains partial control of what is ultimately government-funded research. It is that researchers make publicly funded research available to the public-at-large, and the institution cannot ensure this if they do not remain in control of the data collected.

With respect to the factual nature of the criminal allegations, the charges in the present matter may have been dropped due to a technicality in what was already sure to be a complicated and landmark criminal matter. Dr. Mikovits did not personally remove the notebooks detailing her research, but had a . Should this factor into the concept of theft? Is “counseling to commit intellectual property theft” too far beyond the scope of what the criminal laws should regulate? These are questions that have not yet been answered in the courts, and are a minutia of the bigger issue of IP theft in science.

Whether criminal courts are the proper venue for IP theft is still open to interpretation, and unfortunately, without a trial and judicial reasons, this matter does little to contribute to the criminal jurisprudence of IP theft. However, the results of the will be particularly interesting to follow, as there are various interests at stake, namely: WPI (the institution), Dr. Mikovits (the researcher), and NIH (the government funding agency). The balancing of interests may set an important precedent and guidepost for how scientific research is both conducted and funded in the future, as this IP discourse between an institution and a former researcher is unprecedented.

Ryan Heighton is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post For Your Eyes Only: American Science Scandal Brings Possession of Scientific Data to Forefront appeared first on IPOsgoode.

If , the program would require all 12 of the US federal-science agencies (totalling approximately $60 billion in research) to adopt this policy of depositing articles, though no specific timeframe within which to do so has been proposed.�� This movement may have more credibility than a movement advocating for access solely on the basis of fair use.�� Access2Research`s position is more than the fact that copyright law can be circumvented by a purpose of research or scholarship under section 107 of US .�� Their position is also based on the fact that the US tax-payer has funded this research and is thus entitled to access the results. ��This is a unique argument for access that may be supported with an analogous situation already present in US copyright law.

Although the copyright implications of funding research aren`t specifically addressed in US , there is an analogous situation between funded research and works made for hire.�� states that “In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title...”.�� While funding research is certainly not an identical situation to employing someone to create a work, it does have a practical similarity in that the work would not have been created aside from the support of a contributing party.�� In a work for hire scenario, an employer tasks the author with creating a work, and the author is compensated not with economic rights to the work but with whatever wage the employer has offered to pay them.�� Thus the employer is compensated, in the case of a work made for hire, for their involvement in the creation of the work.�� In the same way, a researcher wants to conduct research and publish a paper, but needs third party financial contributions in order to complete the work.�� Is it fair to ask the person whose contribution paid for the creation of a work to pay a second time to have access to that work?��

In US law the employer, who has already compensated the author for creating a work, owns the copyright in the work and has full access to it.�� While the analogy between employing someone and funding research is not perfect, there is a sense of fairness in the idea that someone who financially supports the creation of a work should have access to that work. ��Besides justifying the policy on the basis of legal consistency, the fact that the NIH has already implemented this policy with success, suggests that the policy is sound.

companies have naturally opposed this policy by stating that implementing the NIH system with all research funded through federal-science agencies would make that system unworkable. ��, a spokeswoman for the Association of American Publishers states that publishers are working to advance the public access issue, but that implementing the NIH system as a one-size-fits-all for federally funded research would be a mistake.

What we can say is that this policy has already been adopted into a large tax funded research agency (NIH) and the policy is consistent with underlying theory of ownership in American copyright law.�� While implementing free access for all federally funded research will no doubt require some minor adjustments for each field of research, the White House should recognize this policy as both fair and viable and therefore worth considering.

Adam Stevenson is a JD candidate at Western University

The post US Tax Funded Research: Sick of Pay-Per-View? appeared first on IPOsgoode.