Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Update to Trademark Practice in Canada



On January 17, 2020, the Canadian Trademarks Office issued amendments to several Trademark practices. The amendments affect the following:
Extensions of time in Examination: The Trademarks Office will no longer grant extensions of time unless the Applicant demonstrates exceptional circumstances that would justify the extension. 

Divisional Applications: The Trademarks Office has not yet set up a dedicated e-service for filing divisional applications. As such, the Office has clarified that to file a divisional, an Applicant may either: (1) file an amended application outlining the goods/services to be included in the divisional application; or (2) file the divisional by way of a paper request. 

Transitional Provisions regarding Nice Classification: The Guide to Transitional Provisions has been amended to reflect that notices under subsection 44.1(1) of the Trademarks Act will generally only be sent after the renewal of a registration for which the goods/services have not been properly grouped according to the classes of the Nice Classification system. 

Renewals: The Trademarks Office has provided clarification on the procedure for classifying the goods or services according to the classes of the Nice Classification system when renewing a trademark registration. 

Temporary Appointment of Trademark Agent or Associate Trademark Agent: Trademark owners will now have the ability to appoint a temporary Canadian Trademark Agent for the purposes of grouping the goods or services according to the Nice Classification system.


For more information please contact:

Kimberly Dunn, Trademark Agent
T: 613.801.1050
E: kdunn@mbm.com


This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Friday, January 17, 2020

Planning ahead: how to protect your business when you’ve licensed-in critical IP and the licensor is going under?




Starting November 1, 2019, important changes are coming into force to the Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Canadian Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that are directly related to intellectual property. These changes will better protect licensees of intellectual property when the licensor becomes insolvent by allowing a licensee in good standing to continue to use the licensed IP, despite licensor’s financial troubles.
In particular, the changes clarify that a licensee that “continues to perform its obligations under the agreement in relation to the use of the intellectual property” can continue to use the IP, including enforcement of the use exclusivity, during the term of the agreement, even if:
  • the IP is sold in a BIA restructuring
  • the IP is disclaimed or sold in a BIA liquidation
  • the IP is disclaimed or sold in a receivership
  • the IP is sold in a CCAA restructuring
As a licensee wishing to continue to take advantage of the licensed IP, it is critical that you continue to meet all obligations in the licensing agreement. 
In order to properly plan ahead, it is our recommendation that a licensing agreement always include contingency arrangements in the event of the licensor’s insolvency. Always have the licensing agreement reviewed by an IP lawyer. These contingency arrangements should specify:
  • provisions detailing what licensee’s obligations are in the event that a licensor cannot meet their on-going obligations in the event of insolvency.  For example, if a licensor receives payments for on-going support activities, the licensee should specify in the agreement that these payments will be payable only if licensor is able to complete these on-going support activities.
  • provisions detailing who will maintain the IP in good standing in the event that the licensor can no longer continue to financially support the IP.
Having appropriate contingency in place in the event of licensor insolvency will help better protect licensee’s business.

For more information please contact:
T: 613.801.0450

Amendments to the Canadian Patent Rules: Key Changes & Their Impact on the Patent Practice in Canada




Canada has revised its patent regime to implement the Patent Law Treaty. The new Patent Rules along with corresponding amendments to the Patent Act are set to come into force on October 30, 2019. Most of the changes are intended to streamline and harmonize administrative procedures and formalities with other international intellectual property offices.              
Below is a summary of the most noteworthy changes that would require significant practice adjustments and preparation by both the applicants and the agents.

WITH RESPECT TO PCT APPLICATIONS FILED ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 30, 2019:

1. Elimination of “Late” national phase entry at 42-months as a matter of right
The current practice allows an applicant to enter CA national phase after the 30-month deadline and up to 42 months from the priority date, as a matter of right, by paying a $200 late entry fee.
Under the new Rules, the “late” entry is only possible by submitting a statement to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) that the failure to enter the national phase at the 30-month deadline was “unintentional”, in addition to the required filing fee and a $200 late entry fee for reinstatement of rights. Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) still reserves the right to accept or reject this statement.
It is therefore advisable going forward to consider the 30-month national phase entry deadline as a non-extendible deadline under the new Rules.

2.Translation required at the time of national phase entry
Submission of the English or French translation for a foreign language patent application is an absolute requirement in order to submit an application in Canada.

3. Filing fee required at the time of national phase entry
Payment of filing fee is an absolute requirement to enter the national phase in Canada, with an exception that if an attempt to make a fee payment at the time of filing is unsuccessful, then the filing fee can be paid within 2 months from the date of the attempted payment.

4. Certified copies of priority documents required at the time of filing
If the certified copies of the priority application were not filed during the international phase, it will be necessary at the time of national phase entry in Canada to submit a copy to CIPO, or refer to a digital library that is accepted by CIPO.

5. Restoration of priority
CIPO will accept the restoration of priority attained at the International Phase. If priority is not restored at the international phase, then the priority may be restored in the Canadian national phase application by filing a request within one month from date of the national phase entry, along with establishing that restoration is required due to an unintentional error.

WITH RESPECT TO DIRECT ENTRY APPLICATIONS BASED ON PARIS CONVENTION FILED ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 30, 2019:

 1. Filing fee and translation NOT required at the time of filing
The payment of the filing fee can be delayed up to 3 months from the date of the Notice issued by CIPO, along with a $150 late fee.
The submission of the English or French translation for a foreign language patent application can be delayed up to 2 months from the date of the Notice issued by CIPO.

2. Certified copies of priority documents are required within 4 months from the filing or 16 months from the earliest priority date
If certified copies of each priority document are not submitted or made available to CIPO from a digital library within the prescribed time, then CIPO will issue a Notice.
Failure to comply with the requirements by the date set by the Notice would result in the priority claim being considered to have been withdrawn.

3. Restoration of priority
Restoration of priority is available if the Canadian application is filed within 14 months of the priority date, and a request for restoration is filed within 2 months from the Canadian filing date, along with the statement that the error was unintentional.

ABANDONMENT AND REINSTATEMENT OPTIONS

Under current practice, if a Canadian patent application (National Phase or Direct Entry) is deemed abandoned for failure to comply with a due date established for any of the actions described below, the application can be reinstated within 12 months from the date of abandonment by requesting reinstatement, paying a $200 government fee, and taking the action that was required to avoid abandonment.
Under the new Rules, the date of abandonment and reinstatement procedures vary depending upon the cause for abandonment.
For failure to request examination due on or after October 30, 2019
  • CIPO will issue a Notice requiring that the request for examination be filed with payment of the exam fee and a $150 late fee within 2 months of the date of the Notice.
  • The application can be maintained in good standing by requesting examination and paying the $150 late fee prior to the due date set by the Notice.
  • Failure to comply with the requirements set out in the Notice will result in abandonment of the application. Reinstatement can be requested within the 12 month period after the date of abandonment.
  • Within 6 months from the original examination deadline, the application can be reinstated, as a matter of right, by requesting examination, paying the $150 late fee and a $200 reinstatement fee.
  • After 6 months from the original examination deadline, the application can only be reinstated if the applicant can also establish to the commissioner’s discretion that the deadline was missed despite the “due care” required by the circumstances was taken.

For failure to pay maintenance fee due on or after October 30, 2019 for a pending application or a patent
  • CIPO will issue a Notice requiring that the maintenance fee be paid with a $150 late fee by the later of: either 2 months after the date of the Notice or 6 months after the missed deadline.
  • The application can be maintained in good standing by paying the maintenance fee and the $150 late fee prior to the due date set by the Notice.
  • oFailure to comply with the requirements set out in the Notice will result in abandonment of the application. Reinstatement can be requested with the 12 month period after the date of abandonment.
  • After the abandoned date, the application can only be reinstated if the applicant can establish to the commissioner’s discretion that the deadline was missed despite the “due care” required by the circumstances was taken, and by paying the maintenance fee, the $150 late fee and a $200 reinstatement fee.

For failure to respond to an Office Action mailed on or after October 30, 2019
  • If a response is not submitted by the due date of 4 months from the date of the requisition (extendible up to 2 months), the application will be deemed abandoned immediately.
  • The reinstatement procedure remains unchanged from current practice, and the application can be reinstated within 12 months of the date of the abandonment, as a matter of right, by submitting the outstanding Office Action response, requesting reinstatement and paying a $200 government fee.

For failure to pay final fee in response to a Notice of Allowance mailed on or after October 30, 2019
  • If the final fee is not paid by the due date of 4 months from the date of the Notice of Allowance, the application will be deemed abandoned immediately.
  • Reinstatement procedure remains unchanged from current practice, and the application can be reinstated within 12 months of the date of the abandonment, as a matter of right, by paying the final fee, requesting reinstatement and paying a $200 government fee.

THIRD PARTY RIGHTS

The new rules introduce the notion of third-party rights to use the invention post-grant, if an applicant fails to pay their maintenance fees and/or to request examination within 6-months from the initial due date (and the due date is after October 30, 2019).
These third-party rights limit the liabilities faced by a third party when a patent application is reinstated or a patent is restored 6 months after the initial due date by paying the maintenance fees and/or if the application is reinstated 6 months after the initial due date for requesting examination.
Given the broad language of these new rules, patent owners will need to consider carefully before delaying the payment of maintenance fee outside the initial 6 months window as they may lose the ability to enforce against third parties that commit, or make serious and effective preparation to commit, an “infringing” act, not only during the window of reinstatement/restoration period but also potentially for the life of the patent.

To emphasize and highlight: In our opinion the two changes that depart most significantly from the current practice are:
1.  the elimination of the option for “Late National Phase Entry” at 42 months from the priority date as a matter of right.
2.  the introduction of third-party rights to use a patented invention because of non-compliance with deadlines relating to payment of maintenance fees and/or request for examination.

For more information please contact:
T: 403.800.9018

T: 613.801.0510

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Review of the Last 100 Decisions of the Canadian Commissioner of Patents





The Canadian Commissioner of Patents with the assistance of the Patent Appeal Board (PAB) review patent applications that were rejected by Examiners during prosecution. The PAB is an advisory body that includes a Chair and several senior officials of the Patent Office with previous experience as patent examiners. The members of the PAB have not participated in the prosecution of the application to ensure that the review is impartial.
We have conducted an informal review of the last 100 Commissioner’s decisions to gain insight into what type of rejections are being appealed to the Commissioner of Patents and what an Applicant’s likelihood of success is. The decisions were issued between March 23, 2016 and August 5, 2019.
Out of 100 decisions:
12 of the applications under review ultimately issued to patent.
  • 7 of the 12 cases that ultimately issued to patent, the rejections were not considered justified.
  • 5 of the 12 cases that ultimately issued to patent required PAB directed amendments.
  • Only 1 of the 12 cases that ultimately issued to patent included a subject matter rejection.
  • 7 of the 12 cases that ultimately issued to patent included an obviousness rejection.
  • 7 of the 12 cases related to biological or chemical fields.
88 of the applications under review ultimately did not issue to patent.
  • In almost half of these cases a statutory subject matter rejection was made.
  • In 23 of these cases, the only rejection was the statutory subject matter rejection.
  • 17 of these 23 cases included rejections relating to the meaning of art.
  • 21 of these 23 cases included rejections that the claims were directed to a mere plan.
  • 56 of these cases included an obviousness rejection.
Based on our informal review of the last 100 decisions, we believe that Examiner’s decisions to reject applications are generally in-line with the PAB. We further believe the Patent Office will require clarification from the Federal Court with respect to subject matter rejections.

For more information please contact:
T: 613.801.0450
This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Are you utilizing your IP to obtain financing and grow your business?



Intellectual property (IP), including patents, industrial designs and trademarks, is an under-utilized business tool for small medium enterprises (SMEs).  Regardless of company size, IP may be used to:
  • Obtain financing
  • Generate revenue through licensing opportunities
  • Protect and/or expand market share 
This is highlighted in the 2019 IP Canada Report from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office in the section entitled “[t]he impact of IP on financing and growth of small and medium enterprises” (https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr04682.html). In particular, the 2019 IP Canada Report summarized the results of ISED 2017 Survey on Financing and Growth of Small Medium Enterprises.  The following points are of particular interest:
  • While more than half of Canadian SMEs are aware of patents, very few have patents.
  • The proportion of Canadian SMEs holding at least one patent increases as size of SMEs increases.  In particular, 3% of SMEs having 20 to 99 employees hold at least one patent while 15% of SMEs having 100 to 499 employees hold at least one patent.
  • Canadian SMEs aware of IP or holding formal IP obtained more financing as compared to SMEs not aware or not using IP.
  • Canadian SMEs aware of IP or holding formal IP increased domestic and international market expansion as compared to SMEs not aware or not using IP.
  • Canadian SMEs aware of IP or holding formal IP increased growth as compared to SMEs not aware or not using IP.
It is important to start a formal conversation about some forms of IP at the outset of your business, even if you don’t have the funds to invest in it right away. A strategy should be devised to plan for it in the future and allocate some budget to properly protect your IP. An intellectual property professional can help you determine what IP is appropriate for your business and how much to budget for it. Intellectual property, especially for start-ups or an SMEs, is considered to be one of its biggest business assets and as such should be treated with extreme care. An IP professional can help you maximize business opportunities out of your intellectual property if the right strategy is in place.

For more information please contact:
Kay Palmer, Senior Patent AgentT: 613.801.0452
E: kpalmer@mbm.com
This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Monday, January 13, 2020

Class action lawsuits may be available for copyright infringement cases in some instances



Despite the fact that it didn’t work out in this case, it appears that reverse class action lawsuits may be possible in copyright infringement situations.
In Voltage Pictures, LLC Canada v Salna, 2019 FC 1412, the Federal Court (“FC”) dismissed a motion for certification brought by Voltage Pictures, LLC and six other film production companies (collectively, “Voltage”).
Voltage brought the motion to certify the proceeding as a class action after identifying what it believed to be three possible infringers. Voltage’s classification of infringers included an “Authorizing Infringer,” which is a person, such as an internet subscriber, who has not taken reasonable steps to prevent infringement from occurring on an internet account controlled by them, or who has authorized an unlawful copy of a film.
The FC found that Voltage’s proposed reverse class proceeding should not be certified as it had failed to fulfill all of the requirements in Rule 334.16 of the Federal Courts Rules. Voltage had not met the low threshold requirement that the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action with respect to Authorizing Infringers who are internet subscribers, under the Copyright Act. Further, Voltage had failed to the meet the requirement that there be an identifiable class of two or more people, as two of the identified respondents were not internet subscribers at the relevant time.

By Scott Miller and Osman Ismaili


This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.

Friday, January 10, 2020

Digital books and ownership rights in the information age



It is interesting how digital books compare to physical books in this electronic age. The rights users have over physical books have often been likened to the rights we may have over currency. For example, just like we can’t make copies of currency, we can’t make copies of a book protected by copyright – but we can trade a book for something else, loan it to someone, give it away as a gift, or resell it. We can own the physical copy of the book itself, even if we don’t own the right to copy it.

Digital books (aka eBooks) on the other hand seem to present a far more complex set of ownership rights. Not only is it the case that users do not have the ability to do many of the above things with digital content, it may actually be the case that they do not “own” the actual digital book either.

In mid-2019, Microsoft announced that it would cease to provide digital books on the Microsoft Store. In accordance with this move, it also said that it would be deleting user’s existing digital book libraries. While users would be refunded for the purchases they had made, one can’t help but imagine that users would still feel a bit frustrated with this forced sort of refund.

And as history repeats itself, this scenario is no stranger to the law. In 2009 (indeed, a whole decade before the Microsoft matter), Amazon had run into some legal troubles for similarly deleting copies of works by George Orwell from customers’ Kindles. After a teenager sued the company (possibly for having been unable to complete his homework), Amazon settled and promised that it wouldn’t delete content from U.S. users’ devices without their permission.

This blurring of the rights associated with digital content has recently gained even more attention with Macmillan Publishers’ stance on libraries and eBooks. As one of the world’s largest publishing companies, it’s interesting to see Macmillan restricting sales of eBooks libraries in order to prevent them from loaning more than a single copy of a digital book to a single reader at one time. This has resulted in lengthy waiting lists for eBooks at many libraries, something some have called a means to restrict certain classes from obtaining new literature.

The reason Macmillan Publishers is likely able to do this is because digital copies of books actually remain under the ownership of the publishing companies, and are usually only licensed to users, libraries or whoever else. Thus, if a publisher, or even a distributor like Microsoft or Amazon, decides to end the licensing agreement, they can.

As one possible way to circumvent this system, many authors are now choosing to bypass publishing houses altogether, and create exclusively digital content for companies like Amazon directly. This however means that certain works will only be available digitally through certain companies. This may result in people having to obtain a plurality of subscriptions, and has been analogized to requiring subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime in order to watch all the shows you love. Perhaps readers will not though, as long as they can still snuggle up at the end of the day to read their favourite works.

If you are wrestling with a digital ownership issue and would like some assistance, please reach out to MBM today and one of our professionals would be happy to assist you.


By: Osman Ismaili

This article is general information only and is not to be taken as legal or professional advice. This article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP. If you would like more information about intellectual property, please feel free to reach out to MBM for a free consultation.