Lawsuits! Infringement! Litigation! Ah, there’s never a dull moment in the wonderful world of intellectual property law, and 2012 will be no exception. Here’s our list of what to watch in the coming year:

Copyright, Copyright, Copyright: For several years running, we have predicted that copyright reform will come to Canada. It might actually happen in 2012. There is good reason for optimism this time: First, the Supreme Court of Canada heard a clutch of copyright cases in December 2011, and their decision is expected in the first half of 2012. Second, the Harper government is promising/threatening (depending on your point of view) to pass Bill C-11, the current iteration of the Copyright Reform Bill. Change will come, one way or another.

Online Terms & Cloud Computing: In one sense, “cloud computing” is just another name for a trend that has been developing for a decade. In another sense, it really does capture a new way of doing business for many IT services. We predict that the law will develop in this area in both Canada and the US, as online terms and cloud-computing contracts are tested in court. Here’s one example of a pending decision: Sony faces a class action in the US over its online terms for the PlayStation Network.

Anti-Spam Law: In 2011, we rashly stated that Canada made “headway” in the anti-spam department, with the passing of the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act. Canada’s anti-spam legislation did receive royal assent on December 15, 2010. However, the law is still not yet in force. Draft regulations are being debated and negotiated, and even if they do come into force in 2012, they will almost certainly be subject to a grace period which will delay implementation until late 2012, or maybe even 2013.

New CDRP Rules: In 2011, CIRA updated the rules governing dot-ca domain name disputes. Watch for our review of the changes, and the first decisions that have been released under the new rules. 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

Copyright complaints against apps are now common, and this one frames the issues nicely: In Shanti Deva Korpi v. Apple Inc. , 1:11-cv-00906- LY (U.S. District Court) a photographer who posts her photos to Flikr, has filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming that two iOS apps – one of which was entitled “Unofficial Guide to Hipstamatic” – engaged in a practice of scraping and republishing her photos, without authorization or attribution. According to the claim, this is a violation of copyright.

In Canada, the recent decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in Century 21 Canada Ltd. Partnership v. Rogers Communications Inc., deals directly with this issue (see my commentary Coming to terms with online copyright published in the November 25, 2011 issue of the Lawyers Weekly). The B.C. case is not an app-related dispute, but the court makes it clear that copyright will be enforceable in situations where content (including images) is scraped off the internet, and is then repackaged and republished without authorization.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

In September, 1998, Amazon applied to patent its 1-click check-out, an invention officially entitled “Method and System For Placing A Purchase Order Via A Communication Network” (Canadian Patent Application No. 2,246,933). In Canada, the patent office refused to grant the patent because it didn’t consider the invention to be patentable under the Canadian Patent Act. Amazon appealed that refusal and in 2010 the Federal Court reversed the patent office’s decision and effectively ordered the patent to be issued. The patent office still refused to grant the patent, and appealed the case up to the Federal Court of Appeal. In a decision in November 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Attorney General of Canada et al v Amazon.com, Inc., 2011 FCA 328. The appeal court has confirmed that business methods are patentable in Canada and there is no basis under Canadian law for excluding business methods from patentability in Canada.

Related Reading:

CIPO’s Software & Business Method Patent Guidelines

Business Method Patents in Canada

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

The BlackBerry maker can’t get a break these days. On December 6th, an American company obtained a Temporary Restraining Order, from a US court barring RIM from using the mark BBX in association with software. The lawsuit is based on the registered trade-mark BBX owned by BASIS International Ltd. This has caused an embarassing renaming of RIM’s new operating system to BlackBerry 10.

Lessons for business?

• Trade-mark screening searches are critical when launching a new brand. Searches can be conducted country-by-country, and search services can screen top markets with quick “knock-out” searches to quickly determine availability.
• Sure, RIM has been beat up a bit by the markets recently, but it’s still a global titan in the mobile devices and software industry… but that didn’t stop a rival software maker from taking on a trade-mark fight. That’s because BASIS had registered trade-marks in its arsenal.  Without the benefit of a trade-mark registration, this fight would have been much more costly and time-consuming and the outcome would have been much different.
• Think about timing and territory – in this case, the preliminary injunction was rushed to court because of the BlackBerry Developer’s Conference in Asia on December 7 and 8, where the BBX mark would have been used extensively by RIM. Does a US court have jurisdiction to issue an order to a Canadian company regarding the use of its mark in Singapore? You might think the answer is no, but an American judge will have a different view. Faced with the US order, RIM decided to re-brand. 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

The Stop Online Piracy Act is a controversial U.S. bill now working its way through Congress. The proposed law is designed (in part) to knock-out foreign websites that are suspected of infringing intellectual property rights. By targetting foreign “rogue” websites and establishing new causes of action against website operators for copyright or trademark infringement, the legislation has raised concerns about ISP liability, and about  how it impacts the operation of the domain name system. SOPA permits the U.S. Attorney General to take action against a “foreign infringing site” such as a Canadian site, and obtain a court injunction against the site. Once an injunction is issued, the A.G. can serve a copy on a number of intermediaries, who must then take action within 5 days.

• ISPs can be ordered to block access to the site by preventing DNS resolution.
• Search engines can be ordered to block the site from search results. 
• Payment networks such as PayPal can be ordered to suspend transactions between the site and U.S. customers.
• Even ad networks can be ordered to stop serving ads on the site.

We will be monitoring the progress of this proposed IP law in the US.

Related Reading: Summary of SOPA, Concerns and Implications (PDF)

Calgary – 07:00 MST  

 

My article Coming to terms with online copyright is published in the November 25, 2011 issue of the Lawyers Weekly. It reviews a recent decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in Century 21 Canada Ltd. Partnership v. Rogers Communications Inc. , [2011] B.C.J. No. 1679. The decision reviews the current state of the law in Canada on the topics of online contracting and copyright, and even the question of whether unauthorized access to a website constitutes trespass.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

 

   

For more, see mimiandeunice.com Calgary – 07:00 MST 

 

A simmering IP infringement case between Oracle and Google raises some fascinating copyright issues for software: what scope of protection is given to functional elements in an SDK (software development kit) or an API (application programming interface)? The case of ORACLE AMERICA, INC. v. GOOGLE INC. (Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA) is in pre-trial contortions, with the trial currently slated for 2012. None of this has been decided in court, it merely focusses attention on a very narrow issue of copyright protection for certain elements of software code (there is a patent infringement claim on the table as well).  Oracle alleges that Google infringed copyright in Java code when it built the Android software platform. Specifically, Oracle complains that Google copied design specifications of some 37 APIs for Java libraries, as well as Java source code, object code and comments in 12 software files. In its defence, Google claims that the APIs are purely functional elements and are not eligible for copyright protection. Will this threaten Android ? Likely not. Google has articulated a compelling argument that there is no copyright in the Java APIs (see here (PDF)), but if the court disagrees and finds either copyright or patent infringement, it will merely trigger a damages calculations, and millions of dollars in royalty payments, not a death-knell for Android.

In Canada, the law is clear (see Delrina Corporation v. Triolet Systems Inc., a 2002 Ontario Court of Appeal decision) computer programming that is dictated by the operating system or reflects common programming practices is not original expression and will not receive copyright protection.  In the meantime, we will watch the Oracle vs. Google case to see if it goes to trial before the parties can reach settlement.

Further Reading including Google and Oracle Trial Briefs.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

Their December 1st Launch Party is just a few weeks away: Get tickets here. It’s an annual event for enterprising Calgary technology companies to spend a moment in the spotlight and get support and recognition from the tech community.

Calgary – 07:00

 

I attended and spoke at the 3rd Cloud Computing conference today, and here are a few points to take-home:

• Pay attention to governing law clauses (which law applies) and dispute resolution procedures (how do we resolve disputes), particularly for cloud service providers whose customers are worldwide;
• Limitations of liability in the context of the “public cloud” are critical. These clauses can be upheld if drafted clearly and carefully, but they will be struck down if they are unclear, or if there are overriding public policy reasons. 
• If you are a cloud-service user, and your use of cloud services involves the hosting of personal information (for example, information of your own end-customers), consider this: if one of those customers withdraws consent to the use of his or her personal information, do you have a protocol in place to track that withdrawal back through the cloud service provider, to the host who may be holding the data?

 

For a copy of my paper, please email me.

Calgary – 12:30 MDT

 

 

 You’re in good company. Even the late Steve Jobs had his complaints about this. In a biography of the Apple founder, Mr. Jobs complains that Android was “grand theft”, and he vowed to fight back. Is Android a rip-off of the iPhone? It certainly followed Apple.  The iPhone was launched in 2007, Android was launched in October, 2008. Apple introduced its App Store in July, 2008. Android Market came out a few months later. Even though it entered the marketplace later, by 2010, Android captured 44% of all mobile app downloads in Q2 2011, passing Apple’s 31% stake (see CNET report) The numbers are hard to crunch (remember, iOS is on multiple hardware devices made by one manufacturer, and Android sits on over 40 smartphones made by six manufacturers), and Apple’s system comes out on top by some measures, but by August 2011, some estimates put Android at a leading 48% of the smartphone market share.

So there is no doubt that Android has stormed from behind as a credible alternative to Apple’s ecosystem, but does that make it a “stolen idea”? Not from the perspective of intellectual property law, since there is no protection in the overall idea of a mobile platform that can run third-party apps. The real question is whether Google copied iOS code (there’s been no suggestion of that), used Apple’s trade-marks (nope), or infringed any of Apple’s patents (see this story for one of the many Apple vs. Android patent fights). 

In any event, there is a fine line between infringement and inspiration. Legend has it that Mr. Jobs was “inspired” by the mouse he originally saw at a Xerox research facility. Neither did Mr. Jobs invent the MP3 player or the idea of a mobile device running third-party apps. My Palm Treo was doing that years before the iPhone was launched.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

A reminder: next week on November 1 & 2, 2011, the 3rd Cloud Computing Law conference will be held in Calgary, hosted by Federated Press. Richard Stobbe will be presenting on the topic of risk-allocation in cloud-based services such as iCloud and other enterprise cloud computing contracts, including warranties, indemnification and limitation of liability clauses.  

IT lawyers and in-house counsel from top companies will review:

• the risks & legal pitfalls of cloud computing
• legal and compliance issues 
• the implications of virtual storage on legal jurisdiction questions
• key issues that need to be addressed when negotiating and drafting a cloud computing agreement  

For registration details: Cloud Computing Law Conference (Calgary) 

Readers of ipblog.ca are eligible for a 15% discount – use this code when registering: CCL1111/PR 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

iOS devices generate a trove of personal information. Do app-developers have access to the personal information of iOS device users? This is the basis of a complaint launched by a US group, as a nationwide class action lawsuit against Apple and a number of iOS app developers. The claim suffered a setback in September when a US judge dismissed the suit (see the PDF; the dismissal makes for interesting reading), with leave to amend.

There are more than 200 million iOS devices in play around the planet, several hundred thousand available apps, and reams of personal info generated by users: address book entries, cell phone numbers, file systems, geolocation data, subscriber identity numbers, keyboard cache, photographs, SIM card numbers, and unique device identifiers.  Who has access to this info, and for what purpose, are questions that have cast a cloud over Apple’s popular ecosystem. 

This story is one that will likely come back through an amended complaint.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

Here are two recent U.S. software decisions to note. Both decisions strengthen the hand of software vendors:

1. In a follow-up to our earlier post (Software License Upheld), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Vernor v. Autodesk Inc. has been denied leave to appeal, meaning the US Supreme Court has elected not to review the decision. This case dealt with resales by Vernor of used copies of AutoCAD software. Vernor claimed the resales were permitted under the “first sale doctrine”. The decision stands for the proposition that a software license is an important exception to the “first sale” defence. This is because the court found that Autodesk had not sold copies but merely licensed copies of the copyrighted work. 
2. In another Ninth Circuit decision ( Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 9th Cir. Cal. Sept. 28, 2011), a small computer reseller operated a business re-selling Mac OS X pre-installed into non-Apple computers.  Apple complained that this was an infringement of copyright and a breach of the Mac OS X license agreement. Specifically, Apple’s software license agreement requires Mac OS X users to run their copies only on Apple computers. Psystar raised the defence that this was restrictive and constituted “copyright misuse”. The court sided with Apple, pointing out that to demonstrate “copyright misuse”, the license agreement would have to restrict creativity or restrict competition. In this case, the Mac OS X license agreement did neither. Apple’s license does not restrict a competitor’s ability to develop its own software, nor does it prohibit customers from using non-Apple components with Apple computers. Instead, Apple’s license merely restricts the use of Apple’s own software to its own hardware.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

In Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., No. 10-15909 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2011) the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that “providing direct infringers with server space” qualifies as a material contribution for contributory copyright infringement of copyright. In Canada, we have the concept of a “authorizing infringement”, but generally, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment (such as server space) that could be used to infringe copyright (according to the Supreme Court in the CCH case).  “Authorize” means to approve, permit and encourage the infringement. However, a court in Canada may find that copyright infringement is “authorized” in circumstances where there is something less than less than direct and positive approval and encouragement, for example, if there is some level of control over the infringing actions. This concept dates back to early cases  from the 1920s (Falcon’s case) and 1940s where “certain mechanical contrivances” (transcription turntables) were used to copy musical recordings, and became the subject of copyright infringement claims.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT   

 

An app developer in Vancouver has been threatened with a take-down notice by CBC, in connection with his radio-streaming app sold through the Mac App Store.  The CBC has complained of copyright and trade-mark infringement, and Apple has reportedly threatened to pull the app if the developer and the CBC cannot come to an agreement. The dispute raises the classic issues of what constitutes copyright infringement: is an app, a photocopier, or an MP3 player, or a car radio for that matter, a tool which facilitates copyright infringement by allowing the copyright-protected works to be copied without the consent of the owner? Canadian law says …. it depends. In the CCH case , the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the question of when someone is liable for facilitating or “authorizing” infringement. The court was clear that “authorization” means to approve of the infringement, and concluded “a person does not authorize copyright infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment (such as photocopiers) that could be used to infringe copyright.”  The mere act of providing the means of infringement is not an act of infringement.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

In a new series, we review the basics of Canadian trade-mark, copyright and patent law.

• Canadian Patents: Patents protect inventions, such as a process, machine, manufactured article, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement to an existing invention. Patents provide the patent owner with the right to exclude others from making, selling, or using the patented invention for a period of 20 years from the date of filing. In exchange, the patent owner must fully disclose the invention. To be patentable, the invention must be new (in other words, be the first in the world); it must be useful (functional and operative); and it must be non-obvious (in other words, it shows “inventive ingenuity” and is not obvious to someone skilled in that area).  Abstract ideas, a mathematical formula or algorithm, or scientific principles are not patentable.
• Best Practices:
• Non-Dislosure: Any public disclosure of the invention prior to filing can result in loss of patentability. Canada has a 12 month grace period, permitting the filing of a Canadian patent application within one year of disclosure, but this grace period is not available in most countries.
• Patent Searching:  A patentability search is recommended before the patent application is prepared. The search and opinion will confirm the patentability of the invention, and can provide insight to a patent agent on how to craft the patent application.
• Provisional Patent: In the US, inventors can file what is known as a “provisional patent application”, and while there is no exact equivalent in Canada, it is possible in Canada to file a simplified form of a patent application, which is often used as a way to quickly secure a filing date. Some inventors fall into the trap of thinking “I’ve got a provisional patent” since an application of this type has been filed. But a provisional will never be examined and will never issue as a patent. Think of this as an incomplete application, since that’s what it is. The provisional or incomplete application must be followed up with a complete application within 12 months in the US, and within 15 months in Canada, after which the patent rights will be lost.  
• Use a registered patent agent: Even the Canadian Intellectual Property Office warns of unauthorized and incompetent advisors who are not qualified to prosecute patent applications before the patent office. 
• Patents Outside Canada:  Patent rights are granted country-by-country, so an issued patent in Canada is not enforceable in the United States, for example, without obtaining patent rights in that country.  A patent application must be filed in each country. Canadian inventors can apply for foreign patents from within Canada through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which provides a standardized international filing system. Through the PCT, a Canadian company can access the application process for 142 PCT member countries.
• Design Patent: See Industrial Design.

For more information and assistance with your patent and intellectual property needs, visit Field’s Intellectual Property & Technology Group. 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

Save the date: On November 1 & 2, 2011, the 3rd Cloud Computing Law conference will be held in Calgary, hosted by Federated Press.

Richard Stobbe will be presenting on the topic of risk-allocation in cloud-based services such as iCloud and other enterprise cloud computing contracts, including warranties, indemnification and limitation of liability clauses.  

IT lawyers and in-house counsel from top companies will review:

• the risks & legal pitfalls of cloud computing
• legal and compliance issues 
• the implications of virtual storage on legal jurisdiction questions
• key issues that need to be addressed when negotiating and drafting a cloud computing agreement  

For registration details: Cloud Computing Law Conference (Calgary) 

Readers of ipblog.ca are eligible for a 15% discount – use this code when registering: CCL1111/PR

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

The Banff Venture Forum is in one month: October 6 and 7, with streams focussing on information technology, cleantech and life sciences. This is a well-attended networking event that serves as a showcase for emerging technology companies from across North America. Also see the  Road to Banff Pitch Competition (Alberta).

Calgary – 10:30 MDT 

 

Are you a Canadian app-developer? One of the most common concerns I hear from my app-developer clients is this: how do you comply with laws around the world when your app is published on the App Store? Not an easy question to answer as these stories show. Here are a few updates from the wonderful world of app-related disputes and litigation:

• This story notes the importance of reviewing app-related privacy issues: a recent US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settlement with app-developer W3 Innovations shows that the FTC will be scrutinizing the mobile app market for privacy violations, particularly violation of children’s privacy.  In the US, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is specific privacy legislation that does not have an equivalent in Canada.
• The Lodsys patent infringement attack against iOS app developers has expanded to target Android developers and (reportedly at least one) BlackBerry app developer (updates here), as well as established game developers, including EA and Atari. Apple has sought to intervene in the case, to argue that their license agreement with Lodsys should shield iOS developers from patent infringement. Google may feel compelled to go to bat for Android developers. Which means Lodsys is locking horns with Apple, Google, RIM and EA.  

Related Reading: When an iPhone App Infringes a Patent 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT