When Canada signed the WIPO Copyright Treaty in 1997 it required Canada to give copyright owners the exclusive right to make their works available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

This was implemented in 2014 by adding Section 2.4(1.1) to the Copyright Act. Section 2.4 (1.1) modified the definition of sSection 3(1)(f) by holding that a work is communicated to the public as soon as it is made available in a way “that allows a member of the public . . . [more]

Establishing patent infringement can be difficult at the best of times but when the technology alleged to infringe a patent is primarily software, there can be extra hurdles for the patent owner. Some recent court decisions reveal some of those challenges.

To prove infringement, a patentee has to show that the activities of the defendant fall within the scope of the claims of the asserted patent. Photos, and engineering drawings or even samples of the product can be used to prove the features of the product or process at issue.

When the patent relates to a particular a software implementation . . . [more]

In overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. the Supreme Court signaled a radical break with the history of the Court, executed in the name of an historicist “originalism.” David Cole, the National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, noted in the New York Review of Books (August 18, 2022) that “never has the Court eliminated a constitutional right so central to the equality and autonomy of half the nation.” But then he also observes that “never has so much changed in a single year” for the . . . [more]

Section 8(1) of Canada’s Anti-Spam Law (CASL) prohibits the installation of a computer program on another person’s computer system without express consent. Compliance and Enforcement Decision CRTC 2022-132 dated May 19, 2022, indicates that this analysis is very technical and may in some circumstances require forensic computer evidence to make out a prosecution under this section of CASL.

In 2015, CRTC enforcement staff identified five Canadian Internet Protocol (IP) addresses linked to 1882914 Ontario Inc., operating as Datablocks Inc. and 2348149 Ontario Inc., operating as Sunlight Media Networks Inc. that appeared to be redirecting users to webpages hosting exploit kits. . . . [more]

In a recent decision, the Federal Court was asked to instruct the Canadian patent office on the proper framework for assessing whether inventions are patentable subject matter. The court held that the three part test proposed by the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC) that includes asking whether the construed claim as a whole consists only of a mere scientific principle or abstract theory that should be rejected as unpatentable, or a patentable practical application that may employ a scientific principle of abstract theorem.

This decision, Benjamin Moore & Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 923, arose . . . [more]

On December 6, 2021, Gap Inc. (Gap) entered into an undertaking under Canada’s Anti Spam Law (CASL) to address allegations that it violated CASL.^[1]

The undertaking resolves the allegations against Gap and its subsidiaries Banana Republic and Old Navy. Alleged were that Gap (and its subsidiaries) had sent commercial electronic messages without the consent of the recipients. A further allegation was that the messages did not include an unsubscribe mechanism that could be readily performed.

The terms of the undertaking require Gap to commit to updating its compliance program addressing the sending of commercial electronic messages. Elements of a . . . [more]

As a statutory court, the Federal Court only has the jurisdiction provided to it under federal legislation, which includes shared and exclusive jurisdiction in the area of intellectual property. In 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the court has jurisdiction to handle contractual issues touching on intellectual property. A recent reported decision has applied this to indemnity claims against third parties.

When determining liability for infringement of patent, trademark and copyright, the intention of the defendant is typically not relevant. A party that uses an infringing product may still be liable for patent infringement even if they merely . . . [more]

We appear to have crossed another great divide in artificial intelligence. It is not just the constant shuffle of driverless cars in my Silicon Valley neighborhood on their endless driving lessons. Nor is it the machine learning gains in diagnostic accuracy that exceed those so expertly trained in radiology and dermatology. Those are visual advances in machine learning. This time it’s language.

Steven Johnson, in a marvelously well-done article in the New York Times Magazine, sets out what machine learning is making of writing. It is the driverless car equivalent of the keyboard. Just feed in your destination and it . . . [more]

Case management Judge Trent Horne of the Federal Court recently said “The Copyright Act is, at the risk of understatement, complex.”^[1]

His case serves to illuminate several key points of that complexity. Generally, copyright owners need to be added as parties to a lawsuit or their not being added has to be justified. Secondly, the pleadings must satisfy the Court that a licensee has the right to sue.

The starting point is that a copyright owner can sue a defendant for copyright infringement and the owner would generally be a party to that lawsuit.

The status of a licensee . . . [more]

In 2018, the Patent Act was amended to expand the scope of the “Prior Use” exception to patent infringement. This exception declares acts not to be an infringement of a patent if a person had done the same act prior to the claim date of a patent. Basically, if someone is doing something prior to the filing of a patent, they can continue to do what they were doing. In the recent Federal Court decision, Kobold Corporation v. NCS Multistage Inc., 2021 FC 1437, the Court had the first opportunity to consider the amended prior use exception.

Prior . . . [more]

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is continuing to hold discussions on a proposal for a waiver of intellectual property rights clauses in its Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement that bear on Covid-19 patents, such as medications and vaccinations. India and South Africa first proposed the waiver on October 2, 2020. It was a time within that first year of the pandemic amid great anticipation of Covid vaccinations on the horizon. The waiver represented a hope for a more equitable roll out of preventative treatments for fighting this scourge, without the usual access barriers posed by intellectual property . . . [more]

The purpose of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (BIA) is to relieve an honest and unfortunate debtor of their debts and liabilities. A discharge from bankruptcy releases the insolvent debtor from pre-bankruptcy debts or liabilities provable in bankruptcy subject to certain exceptions.^[1]

An exception to this rule is s. 178(1)(e) relating to “any debt or liability resulting from obtaining property or services by false pretences or fraudulent misrepresentation”.^[2] Where the exception applies then such debt or liability is not released, and continues to remain enforceable against the debtor after bankruptcy.^[3]

A successful claim . . . [more]