Developing a national innovation strategy has been a top priority of Navdeep Bains, Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Bains has created an expert panel, held meetings across the country, and launched a public consultation in the hope of identifying policies that might enhance Canada’s lacklustre innovation record.
While some have used the consultation to call for expanded intellectual property rules, the reality is that Canada already meets or exceeds international standards. The more pressing innovation issue is to address the abuse of intellectual property rights that may inhibit companies from innovating or discourage Canadians from taking advantage of the digital market.
My technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the benefits of an anti-IP abuse law could be used to touch on the three main branches on intellectual property: patents, trademarks, and copyright.
Read more ›
From the moment that the Liberal government renamed Industry Canada as Innovation, Science, and Economic Development it sent a clear signal that innovation is a top policy priority. Indeed, in recent months Minister Navdeep Bains has repeatedly called for bold policies focused on addressing Canada’s dismal innovation record.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that while the specifics of the Canadian innovation policy have yet to be revealed, a recent Australian government backed study provides a potential roadmap. The Australian Productivity Commission, which functions as an independent “think tank” for the government, released a 600 page draft report in April that proposes a myriad of changes to its intellectual property system.
The government asked the Commission to report back on whether the current legal frameworks “ensure that the intellectual property system provides appropriate incentives for innovation, investment and the production of creative works while ensuring it does not unreasonably impede further innovation, competition, investment and access to goods and services.” The result is a comprehensive report based on hundreds of submissions and consultations representing a broad range of views.
Read more ›
Critics of trade agreements such as the TPP and the Canada-EU Trade Agreement has emphasized that a key concern is that deals will lead to increased costs for pharmaceutical drugs. At a recent Standing Committee on Health hearing on the development of a national pharmacare program, officials with Health Canada confirmed that they expect prices to increase but remain unsure about how much (hat tip: Blacklock’s Reporter). The exchange came from questions by NDP MP Don Davies:
Mr. Davies: Canada has just signed two trade deals, CETA and the TPP, which have new intellectual property provisions. All the literature and opinions I’ve read indicate that this will delay the introduction of generics to market for some time. I’m seeing estimates of two years as about what it’s going to take. Ms. Hoffman, has the department done some analysis on the likely impact of TPP and CETA, and is it true that those trade deals will likely increase the prices that Canadians pay for pharmaceuticals and add a little bit of mud to that already dirty picture?
Read more ›
The Eli Lilly claim against Canada for hundreds of millions due to a court decision involving patent utility has attracted considerable attention with fears that the case foreshadows many more corporate lawsuits if the Trans Pacific Partnership becomes a reality. While the Canadian government has raised doubts about the independence of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce intervention in the case, the government must be a bit confused on where the U.S. stands on the issue. Yesterday, the U.S. Trade Representative issued its 2016 report on foreign trade barriers and stated the following on the case:
With respect to pharmaceuticals, the United States continues to have serious concerns about the impact of the patent utility requirements that Canadian courts have adopted.
That is consistent with the Eli Lilly argument, yet last month the U.S. State Department provided its own submission in the case. The U.S. government appears to undermine USTR arguments, seemingly siding with the Canada on the issue. The U.S. submission states each country has the right to determine how it implements the utility requirement, the possibility of revocation of patent rights, and for its patent laws to evolve:
Read more ›
As the TPP negotiations reached their conclusion in Atlanta last October, one outstanding issue stood above all others: protection for biologics. While not well understood by the public, at issue was billions of dollars and access to cutting edge medicines. The Trouble with the TPP series examines the outcome of the biologics issue and argues that even with less protection than the U.S. advocated, the TPP’s requirements still represent a significant problem for global health (prior posts include Day 1: US Blocks Balancing Provisions, Day 2: Locking in Digital Locks, Day 3: Copyright Term Extension, Day 4: Copyright Notice and Takedown Rules, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. Users “May”, Day 6: Price of Entry, Day 7: Patent Term Extensions).
Biological drugs are pharmaceuticals involving complex molecules or mixtures of molecules that are made of biological sources manufactured within a living system. They differ from conventional drugs that are manufactured by combining chemical ingredients. Building on greater knowledge of genetics and cell processes, the area represents a major growth area for the pharmaceutical industry. With the complexity comes cost, however, with biological drugs far more expensive than conventional ones. Much like the generic pharmaceutical industry creates cheaper, generic versions of chemical drugs, companies have begun to create “biosimilars” as cheaper versions of biological drugs, relying on data from clinical trials to formulate the alternative. Pharmaceutical companies have therefore sought protection for the clinical data.
Read more ›