Americans are reputed to be more litigious than the people of other nations, including Canada. A number of our firm’s clients have been involved in legal actions in the United States. These legal actions generally occurred when our client had commercial success, or was on the verge of having success, in the United States. In some of the lawsuits, our client was the defendant, that is, our client was being sued for patent infringement. For example, a client with a natural gas control product was taking substantial business away from a major company in the field. The major company sued the client asserting infringement of a group of patents, including a claim for “convoyed” sales. “Convoyed” sales are sales of non-patented products (wire, tubing, etc.) sold along with infringing products, the thinking being that such convoyed sales would not have occurred except for the infringement. In other lawsuits, our client was the plaintiff, that is, our client was suing for patent infringement. For example, a client in the field of non-destructive testing had patented technology for checking for gas leaks that used a non-toxic vapour that carried a dye. When the client starting taking substantial business away from the industry leader in gas leak detection technology, the industry leader copied the technology to avoid a further erosion of its market share. This forced our client to bring legal proceedings in the United States to enforce its patent rights. Our client spent well over a million dollars in legal fees before finally achieving success in the litigation. However, in order to avoid a repetition of such an expense, the non-destructive testing client subsequently purchased a policy of infringement insurance. There are two types of infringement insurance, defensive policies to protect you when you are sued and abatement policies to protect you when your intellectual property rights are infringed. The cost of the policies depends upon industry sector, gross revenues and other factors. There is generally a minimum 10% co-pay requirement. The important take away is that infringement insurance exists. It is provided by specialized insurance companies and not by general commercial insurance companies. Since acquiring infringement insurance, the non-destructive testing client has become involved in five U.S. patent lawsuits. They estimate that having the infringement insurance has saved them at least 2 million dollars. There is a further benefit in having infringement insurance. For example, not too long ago, we sent a “cease and desist” letter to an alleged infringer, and received a very aggressive and belligerent response. We notified the infringement insurance company. After receiving a letter from the infringement insurance company, the attitude of the alleged infringer changed completely. Presumably because the presence of infringement insurance demonstrated to the alleged infringer that our client had the financial backing to litigate the dispute, the alleged infringer got in touch with our office and the matter quickly settled. If your company is having commercial success in the United States that is at least in part based on your intellectual property rights, or you are operating in a field in which other players have intellectual property rights, you may wish to review your circumstances to determine whether infringement insurance would be beneficial for you.
You spent over 1200 hours in developing a video game and that video game is now successful. At some time during development, a friend had some free time and assisted by creating images of a couple of cars, accessory items like fuel cans and trees, and some background scenery. The “friend”, hearing about the success of the video game, demanded 25% of the profits from the video game for his contribution. You respond by removing the images from the video game. This did not satisfy the now former-friend, who sued you claiming there was an express profit sharing agreement, claiming that even in the absence of an express profit sharing agreement his contributions made him a co-author of the video game and thus entitled to a share of the profits, and alternatively, that he was entitled to compensation commensurate with the value of his contribution. This is the fact scenario from a Quebec case, Seggie v. Roofdog Games Inc, where Seggie, the “friend”, made a claim against a video game developer by the name of Germain and Germain’s company, Roofdog Games Inc. Under the Canadian Copyright Act, except for some specified exceptions (including making a work subject to copyright in the course of employment) and absent an agreement to the contrary, the author of a work is the first owner of copyright in the work, and joint-authors (also referred to as co-authors) are the first co-owners of copyright. The Judge in the Seggie case set out the following factors to consider in determining whether video game developers are “co-authors”: 1) each co-author must have made a substantial contribution, 2) the co-authors must work collaboratively toward a common goal, 3) there must be an implication that the co-authors must have intended a jointly-authored work, and 4) the contributions of the co-authors must be blended together and not distinguishable one from the other. The Judge found the Seggie was not a co-author, as his contributions were minor in comparison to those of Germain, the disparity in contributions and other background evidence did not indicate that they were working toward a common goal or suggest an intention for a jointly-authored work, and Seggie’s contributions remained distinguishable from those of Germain. However, the Judge found that Seggie owned copyright in the images of cars, fuel cans, trees and background scenery he had provided to Germain. Since it was unclear that Seggie had permanently renounced his right to compensation for the use of the images, Germain was ordered to pay compensation for the use of the images in the sum of $10,000. There is a lesson here for video game developers. You should document in writing the relationship and, if applicable, compensation due anyone who makes even a minor contribution during the development of your video game.
Companies or individuals who wish to bypass paywalls should be aware that a Canadian court recently held an association liable for copyright infringement because it requested and obtained a paywall-protected news article from a third party with a subscription to the news site.
The articles, images, and audio and video files found on the Internet are all works subject to copyright, meaning that some entity (e.g., an individual or company) owns copyright and thus has “the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever.” It is an illegal infringement of copyright to do what the copyright owner has the sole right to do, without the owner’s permission. These aspect of copyright law are widely understood (though often ignored, e.g., music file sharing).
Less well known is a relatively new aspect of Canada’s copyright law relating to technical protection measures. Under our Copyright Act: a technical protection measure is defined as any effective technology that in the ordinary course of its operation controls access to a work subject to copyright; and it is illegal to circumvent a technical protection measure.
A paywall is a system that prevents Internet users from accessing webpage content without a paid subscription. For example, some general readership newspapers have implemented paywalls on their websites to increase their revenue, which has been diminishing due to a decline in print subscriptions and advertising revenue.
The recent court decision, Blacklock’s Reporter v Canadian Vintners Association, dealt with a dispute between a subscription-based paywall-protected electronic daily news service providing detailed information about the Government and courts in Ottawa (Blacklock’s), and an industry association (Canadian Vintners) that did not have a subscription but had requested and obtained a copy of an article relating to the association, from a person with a subscription. Blacklock’s usually charged $157 for a single-use subscription and $11,470 for an institutional membership. When Blacklock’s became aware that two individuals at Canadian Vintners had accessed the article, Blacklock’s billed Canadian Vintners for two single-use subscriptions ($314) and requested the name of the person who had provided the copy (who was in breach of the terms and conditions of their subscription).
Canadian Vintners refused to pay or to provide the person’s name, and the dispute led to a lawsuit. The Ontario Superior Court Small Claims Judge held that the paywall constituted a technical protection measure, and held that requesting and obtaining a copy of a paywall-protected article from someone with a subscription, constituted the illegal act of circumventing the technical protection measure. As the copy of the article was obtained illegally, the exceptions to copyright infringement (e.g., “fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education,… ”) that may apply in some situations, were not available to Canadian Vintners.
Thus, although Canadian Vintners had not itself made the infringing copy, it was found liable for copyright infringement based on the circumvention of the technical protection measure. Further, the Judge awarded Blacklock’s damages based on the institutional membership ($11,470) plus $2,000 in punitive damages for Canadian Vintners highhanded behaviour (which included refusing to give the name of the person who provided the copy of the article, until ordered to do so by the Court).
I was listening to the radio the other day and caught the tail end of an interview concerning the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The comment that attracted my attention was a statement that the Intellectual Property provisions of the TPP agreement would cost Canada 57,000 jobs. The same evening the TPP agreement was on the evening television news and the person interviewed indicated that the ability of Canada to change its laws would be hampered. I have now read the Intellectual Property provisions of the TPP agreement, which are found in the 75 pages which comprise Chapter 18 and accompanying schedules. The agreement indicates that countries may change their laws “provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter”. As indicated by the television commentator, Canada would be in breach of the agreement if, after signing, the government chose to pass laws that contradict the provisions of the TPP agreement. Looking for the lost 57,000 jobs, I found that most of the 75 pages are consistent with the laws of Canada as they presently exist. The copyright term has been lengthened, but that change is unlikely to cost any jobs. Canada’s previous copyright term was the life of the author plus 50 years after his or her death. The TPP agreement provides for a copyright term of the life of the author plus 70 years after his or her death. In Canada, there is a government approval process before a company can sell agricultural chemical products, pharmaceuticals, or biologics (complex molecules such as proteins that are isolated from plants, animals or micro-organisms, or made using biotechnology). The TPP agreement provides for a “patent term adjustment”, lengthening the term of a patent when there are delays in the government approval process. This change will give drug companies a few more years of protection and will slow the introduction of generic drugs into the Canadian market. As part of the government approval process, companies must submit test data and, where applicable, data from clinical trials. There is presently no law, prohibiting subsequent applicants for government approval from using test data submitted by an original applicant. The TPP agreement provides that subsequent applicants are prohibited from using the test data submitted by the original applicant for a period of 10 years when seeking government approval for agricultural chemicals, 5 years for pharmaceuticals, and 8 years for biologics. This will also slow the introduction of generic products into the Canadian market, as generic manufacturers are forced to either wait or develop their own test data and conduct their own clinical trials. I have no way of assessing whether 57,000 jobs will be lost. However, it is reasonable to assume that there will be a loss of jobs in the generic drug industry as these provisions begin to affect generic drug manufacturers based in Canada. However there are some answers missing from the dialog, that would help me decide whether or not I am in favour of TPP. How many jobs may be gained in other sectors with the signing of TPP? How many jobs may be lost if we do not sign TPP? We rely upon our exports, being frozen out of TPP may not be good for Canada in the long run.
In Victoria, we love to criticize our local politicians from our safe seats on the sidelines with respect to everything from bridge replacement to sewage treatment. A common complaint is that they don’t “do” anything. I thought I would take some time to comment on an Angel Investor event entitled “A Capital Mission” that took place February 17 – 19. This is an example of local politicians trying to make things happen for the local economy by showcasing our tech community to both local investors and investors from elsewhere in Canada and the United States. The event began the evening of Wednesday February 17 with a welcome reception at which Mayor Lisa Helps assumed the role of gracious host, first by giving a welcoming address and then by inviting Amrik Virk, BC Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, and United States Consul General Lynne Platt to add their comments. Tim Catlin of Change.org, one of the U.S. based organizations that has invested locally, indicated that with our existing infrastructure and the comparatively low Canadian dollar, Victoria is a very attractive place for a U.S. citizen to invest. There followed a “pitch night” with the following entrepreneurs making pitches to secure capital for their ventures. LlamaZoo produces software that provides anatomy training for veterinarian students. Cooler Heads produces auto-deploying head and face flash fire protection. OrangeDox produces a software that adds greater functionality to Dropbox. Craftt Technology produces a beer keg tracking system for craft brewers. Social Nature promotes peer to peer marketing. Chatter High is a web platform to allow junior high and high school students to explore post-secondary career options in an entertaining way. Industrial Plankton produces low cost algae bioreactors for aquaculture. Vertical Organic Garden produces space-efficient vertical hydroponic systems for in-home use. Plurilock produces biometric security systems that monitor keyboard dynamics. Island Circus Place is seeking to start a circus school. On Thursday, February 18, the Angel Investors were organized in groups and taken on tours that included a number of technology incubators and co-working spaces. In the morning on Friday, February 19, an Investor Education Workshop was held with a presentation by Josh Maher, the author of Startup Wealth: How the Best Angel Investors Make Money in Startups. The assembled Angel Investor were then invited to spend Friday afternoon, at the Discover Tectoria trade show with over 70 exhibits located at the Crystal Gardens. This three day event will have some modest benefits short term, but may lead to some tremendous advances long term. Congratulations to all who had a role in making this event happen including: Mayor Lisa Helps, Victoria City Council, University of Victoria, ViaTec, Tourism Victoria, the Downtown Victoria Business Association, the Capital investment Network and the Urban Development Institute.
A client of our office is launching a Kickstarter campaign at 6pm on March 3 with respect to a family of cable organizers. There is one cable organizer that handles the power cord for a smart phone. There is another cable organizer that handles the earphones that are used with a smart phone. We are happy to help “get the word out” . The Kickstarter campaign will run just over 30 days. We ask that you give this new product a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcLyLsXLc1s
I recently had lunch with a banker friend . He related some of his daily struggles in approving loans and summed up by indicating that his bank hired him to fund viable businesses, not “dreams”. The reality of the banking business is that a banker will only grant you a loan to launch an innovative project if you have the pre-existing financial strength to financially back the new business. After the business has being operational for two years or more, the financial performance of the business over that period will clearly indicate whether or not you have a viable business rather than just a “dream”. Persons who do not have such financial strength are forced to seek assistance from investors. The quest for investors usually starts with family members and personal acquaintances who trust and believe in you. There are some investors, referred to as “angel” investors, who invest in projects of complete strangers for fun and profit. The angel investors that I have known are relatively wealthy and have a past history of entrepreneurial success. Their angel investments are like a hobby to them. The number one criterion of the angel investor is that he or she must like you and feel he or she can work with you. If you are difficult to work with, it takes the fun out of the project and the angel investor doesn’t want or need the hassle. The number two criterion is that the angel investor must believe that the project has substantial growth potential and is not merely a “create a job” project. The ultimate object of the investment is to make some money at the end of the project. Ideally, the angel investor has contacts or knowledge that can contribute to the project and help make that happen. The number three criterion is that there must be some logical jumping off point at which the angel investor can cash in on his investment. If you have a good fit with an angel investor, you may well develop a life-long friendship. You will have to do most of the work, but at critical times the angel investor will be there to assist you. The angel investor will give you advice which will help you avoid mistakes you would otherwise have made. As he or she gets to know you, the angel investor will assess your strengths and weaknesses and get others to help cover your weak areas. The angel investor will set and expect you to meet performance milestones. Consider it tough love. It is for your own good. A controlling interest (over 50% of the venture) is not essential to the angel investor, although the angel investor can exercise a measure of control by simply withholding additional funds if he or she does not approve of the way the business is being run. If all goes well, the relationship with the angel investor ends at the planned exit position. On small projects, this is often the sale of the business, at which time you both “cash in”. On large on-going projects, you will progress to the “next stage of financing” in which a venture capitalist steps into the shoes of the angel investor and puts serious money into the business to take it to the next level. I have nothing but respect for angel investors, the ones I have worked with are special people indeed. There are a number of differences between angel investor funding and venture capital funding. Those differences will be explored in a separate article.
Awards are a time to stop our hectic pace and recognize how far we have come (regardless of how far we may yet have to go). I was delighted to hear that the one of our clients, AVI Inc was nominated as a finalist for the LAMP awards (Lighting Architecture Movement Project). I attended the LAMP Awards, which were held in Vancouver on November 12, at the invitation of Matt Kennedy, the President of AVI Inc. I met the other members of the AVI team including accountant Michael Manley, photographer Darryl Bueckert, and SR&ED consultant Ken Bell. The theme of the LAMP Awards for 2015 was “Crystallize”. I urge you to see some of the marvelous entries at www.welovelamp.ca . I have attached a photo of the AVI entry. I would like to thank Darryl Bueckert for allowing me to use this photo. If you like Darryl’s work, check out his website www.darrylbueckert.com. I will post some further material on how you can purchase the products of AVI Inc and about the Crowdfunding campaign of AVI Inc at a later date. Matt Kennedy has been a great guy to work with and I look forward to continuing to work with him in future.
I have just returned from the annual convention of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC). This is two-day event with numerous educational workshops for Patent Agents, Trademark Agents and IP Lawyers. There were plenary sessions that everyone attended and breakout sessions where the audience broke into smaller groups. The plenary sessions included an address in which Mr. Justice George Locke of the Federal Court provided “tips for having a better relationship with your Judge”, an address by the President of the Canadian Bar Association, Janet Fuhrer, concerning the future of the profession entitled “Reimagining the Ways We Practise”, a panel of experts discussing Crowdfunding, and a panel discussing the issues and opportunities which are being created by 3D printing. I find Crowdfunding interesting in its various forms. You can Crowdfund through social media to solicit pre-orders for your product. You can Crowdfund by making an emotional appeal through social media to solicit donations. Subject to legal limitations imposed by securities regulators, you can also use social media to Crowdfund by selling small equity interests in a start-up venture. 3D printing is considered a “disruptive” technology, because it has the potential to dramatically change the way we do things. For example, currently there are numerous people employed in the transportation industry. However, shipping costs can be avoided entirely by simply having a 3D “print shop” in your neighbourhood. Instead of shipping a replacement part for one of your motor vehicles or household appliances, the part can be “printed” for you. As with the current issues related to genuine and “pirate” internet sites for music and videos; there will soon be a problem with genuine and “pirate” internet sites that supply the files necessary to print out these parts. The patent breakout sessions included: a review of key court decisions concerning “the promise of the patent” which have changed the way patents should be prepared; and a session called “Gotcha” which reviewed patent infringement remedies in Canada and the United States. The trademark/copyright breakout sessions included: a review of changes which are coming to Trademark Law as a result of Canada having signed a number of treaties ( Nice, Singapore and Madrid); and several sessions on dealing with copyright and trademark issues in light of the Internet and social media. It was explained that in this age of social media, the old approach of sending a nasty “cease and desist” letter may backfire. An unnecessarily heavy-handed cease and desist letter may well be posted on social media and attract comment. Before one can stop it, the matter may go “viral” with the possibility of substantial negative publicity. An example that was discussed as an alternative approach, was a dispute between the makers of a juice called “Pom Wonderful” and a television host by the name of John Oliver. The humorous (although somewhat off colour) video can be viewed on YouTube a link for which will be provided below. Why am I relating this information to you? I believe that by reviewing issues being discussed by IP professions today, you gain insight as to issues which will be touching our lives tomorrow.
We have seen it many times before. A businessman or businesswoman attends our office outraged that another business is blatantly copying their product. They want action taken and want it taken now. Copyright protection has no time limitation. If we can claim copyright protection on the product, we can take immediate action. However, design protection and patent protection each have a time limitation. If an application for design protection or patent protection has not been filed within 12 months of the first public disclosure of the product, it is no longer possible to obtain design protection or patent protection. Sadly, we must sometimes advise the businessman or businesswoman that they missed their deadline (sometimes by several years) and have no recourse. We cannot over emphasize the importance of taking early action to protect your product. Unfortunately, due to time limitations, a decision must sometimes be made before it is clear whether or not your product has significant commercial potential. Equally important is the name of the business and the name of the product or service. The law recognizes “common law” Trademark rights, if a competitor is using a similar Trademark in a geographical area in which you have worked hard to establish a reputation for your business. However, you cannot rely upon a “common law” Trademark if the use by another business is not in a geographical area in which your business operates and has an established reputation. We were recently consulted by a client who received a “cease and desist” letter from a legal firm. A person, who was aware of our client, took the concept to a different city a few years ago and started using very similar Trademarks. To make matters worse, they subsequently filed and obtained Federal Trademark Registrations. The legal firm is now demanding our client change the name of their service business and Trademarks used in association with the service. In order to deal with this threat, the client is going to have to ask the Federal Court to invalidate the Federal Trademark Registration on the basis that it would never have been granted by the Trademarks Office had the facts been known. Unlike other types of property, such as real estate and automobiles, it is possible to lose control of “Intellectual Property” assets. The title of this article is “taking preventative measures”. The intended message is to caution you to take steps to protect your Intellectual Property assets as soon as you realize that you have created something of value that others may wish to take and use for their own purposes.