On March 31st, the Competition Bureau of Canada published guidelines on the intricate dance of the various Acts governing intellectual property and unfair competition. It is not a bad read at all, as it provides succinct definitions of intellectual property types (which I will no doubt use for inspiration when explaining things to my clients – they are that good), as well as 9 examples of unfair practices in which the Competition Bureau would be called to intervene.
Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines
Some of the examples are:
- Price fixing
- Exclusive Contracts
- A Patent Pooling Arrangement
- Refusal to License Intellectual Property
- Representations Made in the Context of Asserting Patents
- Reneging on a Licensing Commitment
- Seeking an Injunction after Making a Licensing Commitment
Enjoy the read. As always, the proof is in the pudding, or more accurately, in the implementation of these new Guidelines.
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and Europe, or CETA, was published September 26, 2014.
The text may be found here:
There is a lot of information about tariffs on certain levels of imports and exports, fairness, business travel… The people who prepared this document have won a place in the heaven of trade administrators, for it is indeed exhaustive.
By section 21, I could not make myself read anymore.
I went up the urls until I found a summary about the IP, which I translated into English For People Who Don’t Like Long Careful Paragraphs Designed Not to Piss Anyone Off:
- Copyright: CETA echoes the recent Copyright Modernization Act, supporting copyright owners while allowing Internet service providers, educators, students and businesses the tools they need to use new technologies in innovative ways.
- Geographical indications: Canada already recognizes geographical indications for wines and spirits. CETA adds recognition of EU geographical indications for foodstuffs, such as certain meats and cheeses.
- Patents: Pharmaceutical patent extension, balanced by needs of Canadians for affordable drugs. The policy background is that we want to keep and bring science jobs and investments to Canada. I know there are a lot of whiners who don’t like patent extension, but if you want good pharmaceuticals, good jobs, and good tax income for Canada, suck it up.
- Counterfeit goods: Counterfeit goods are often crappy, can be dangerous, and are definitely unfair to innovators and designers. Enforcement that is efficient is the goal.
No doubt there will be a few bumps along to road to getting all this implemented, but organized trade which promotes fairness and trust among nations is a good thing. (Sorry, Martha!)
The United States Supreme Court has overruled the Federal Circuit, holding that a potential infringer cannot be liable under 271(b) (induced infringement) unless one entity infringes under 271(a). The patent was in the field of delivering electronic data.
If you know who originated this image, please let me know. I’ve done some searching but I cannot identify him or her. This is what happens when your work is so popular it goes viral! And that raises a related IP issue, namely copyright!