By Richard Stobbe

The made-in-Canada notice-and-notice provisions are coming in January, 2015. 

You may recall that in June 2012 the Copyright Modernization Act was passed by Parliament. Portions of the new copyright law came into force in November 2012, while the so-called notice-and-notice procedures were held back, to give the government time to consider regulations. (See: New Copyright Act Becomes Law… In Part) Through an Order in Council, the government has elected to proceed without regulations.

The new provisons legally require Internet intermediaries, such as ISPs and website hosts, to take certain actions upon receiving a notice of alleged infringement from a copyright owner.

Specifically, ISPs and hosts are required to forward notices, sent by copyright owners, to users whose Internet address has been identified as being the source of possible infringement. The intermediary must also inform the copyright owner once the notice has been sent.

The Copyright Modernization Act sets clear rules on the content of these notices. Specifically, they must be in writing and state the claimant’s name and address, identify the material allegedly being infringed and the claimant’s right to it, as well as specify the infringing activity, the date and time of the alleged activity, and the electronic address associated with the incident.

Related Reading: Government Backgrounder

Calgary – 07:00 MST

By Richard Stobbe

As a follow-up to our earlier post (PIPA on Death’s Door), Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) has been resuscitated. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has granted a six-month reprieve, to allow the Government of Alberta to pass amendments to PIPA. An amended bill was tabled in the legislature last week. The amendments attempt to strike a balance to address the constitutional issues that were the cause of the Act’s downfall in an SCC decision more than a year ago.

Stay tuned.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

–

By Richard Stobbe

The CRTC has released guidelines on the implementation of the incoming computer-program provisions of Canada’s Anti-Spam Law (CASL). Software vendors should review the  CASL Requirements for Installing Computer Programs for guidance on installing software on other people’s computer systems. Remember, the start-date of January 15, 2015 is less than 2 months away. Here are a few highlights:

• CASL prohibits the installation of software to another person’s computing computer – which includes any device, laptop, smartphone, desktop, gaming console, etc.) in the course of commercial activity without express consent;
• Downloading your own app from iTunes or Google Play? CASL does not apply to software, apps or updates that are downloaded by users themselves; 
• Maybe you still use a CD to install software? CASL does not apply to “offline” installations by a user;
• Where implied consent cannot be relied upon, then express consent is required. The guidelines state the following:

“When seeking consent for the installation you must clearly and simply set out:

1. The reason you are seeking consent;
2. Who is seeking consent (e.g., name of the company; or if consent is sought on behalf of another person, that person’s name);
3. If consent is sought on behalf of another person, a statement indicating which person is seeking consent and which person on whose behalf consent is being sought;
4. The mailing address and one other piece of contact information (i.e., telephone number, email address, or Web address);
5. A statement indicating that the person whose consent is sought can withdraw their consent; and
6. A description in general terms of the functions and purpose of the computer program to be installed.”  

 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

By Richard Stobbe

In a recent decision in the US (Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc.), a company was found liable for indirect patent infringement even though the infringing features of its product were disabled when the product was sold. In the post-sale period, customers enabled the infringing features.  This was enough for the court to find the company liable for indirect infringement.

This case arose between two rivals in the wide area network market – Riverbed and Silver Peak. Riverbed sued Silver Peak for infringement of a number of US patents. Silver Peak counterclaimed, alleging infringement of three US patents. A jury trial eventually returned a verdict in favour of Silver Peak. Silver Peak asserted indirect infringement against Riverbed with respect to two patents. Specifically, the jury concluded that Riverbed “contributorily infringed” one of the patents and “induced infringement” of the other.

Riverbed challenged these conclusions, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of customer use of the accused features in the United States. Riverbed pointed out that the feature of its product that was allegedly infringing – a feature known as SDR-Adaptive – was disabled before the product was sold to consumers in the US. No-one disputed that fact. However, through user forums on the Riverbed website, as well as product manuals issued by Riverbed, consumers were taught how to enable and use this feature.

The court reviewed this surrounding evidence and concluded: “In sum, Silver Peak has offered evidence of Riverbed’s high sales volume, an instruction manual describing how to activate SDR-A, and several blog entries on Riverbed’s U.S. support forum from people who used their Riverbed devices with SDR-A enabled. Taken together, this circumstantial evidence is sufficient…” Riverbed was found to have indirectly infringed the Silver Peak patents.

Lessons for business? Canadian companies selling into the US should be aware that sales of their products may form the basis for liability in the US if used by customers in the US in infringing ways.

Related Reading: A Company May Be Liable for Indirect Infringement Where Its Customers Enable an Infringing Feature Even Though the Company Sells Its Product with That Feature Disabled

Calgary – 07:00 MST

By Richard Stobbe

Determining inventorship is answering the question: who contributed enough to an invention to be named as an “inventor” on the patent application? It’s critical, as reviewed by my colleague Shohini Bagchee in her article Whose Invention Is It Anyway? – Some Thoughts on Patent Inventorship and Ownership.

Although the US case Ethicon Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp. (135 F.3d 1456) is not a new decision, it’s worth reviewing since it neatly illustrates the troubles that can arise. In Ethicon, a first inventor, Dr. Yoon, obtained a patent covering a certain surgical device. The patent contained 55 claims. Yoon granted a license to Ethicon. On the stregth of this license, Ethicon turned around and sued its competitor U.S. Surgical for infringing two of the claims in the Yoon patent. U.S. Surgical in the course of preparing its defence found that Mr. Choi had contributed to the invention and he should have been named as co-inventor on the Yoon patent.

Mr. Choi contributed to only two of the 55 claims – two claims which were not at issue in the infringement action. In its defence, U.S. Surgical sought – and the court granted – an order that Mr. Choi be added as a co-inventor to the patent. Even though Mr. Choi had contributed to a small percentage of the overall invention (and had contributed to claims that were not at issue in the lawsuit), his status as a co-inventor permitted him under US law to grant a license to the whole patent. Ethicon’s patent infringement lawsuit was dismissed after Choi granted a retroactive patent license to U.S. Surgical.

Lessons for business?

• Internal IP policies and invention-disclosure protocols should be designed to capture all inventors who contributed to inventorship.
• In joint research agreements or joint development agreements, don’t ignore co-inventorship issues.
• Remember that invention-disclosure and inventorship should dovetail with invention assignment agreements, as well as the IP provisions in employment agreements and consultant agreements.
• Ensure you are getting legal advice regarding inventorship as it relates to the jurisdiction in which you are filing your patent application.
• Remember that the law in Canada and the US differs on this point: A co-owner’s interest in a co-owned patent can be licensed without the consent of the other owner in the US and there is no need to account to the other owner for licensing revenue; but in Canada the patent cannot be licensed without the consent of the other co-owner.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

–

By Richard Stobbe

In Part 1, we looked at the B.C. decision in Douez v. Facebook, Inc.

Another proposed privacy class action was heard in the B.C. court a few months later: Ladas v. Apple Inc., 2014 BCSC 1821 (CanLII).

This was a claim by a representative plaintiff, Ms. Ladas, alleging that Apple breached the customer’s right to privacy under the Privacy Act (B.C.), since iOS 4 records the location of the “iDevice” (that’s the term used by the court for any Apple-branded iOS products) by surreptitiously recording and storing locational data in unencrypted form which is “accessible to Apple”. The claim did not assert that this info was transmitted to Apple, merely that it was “accessible to Apple”. This case involved a different section of the Privacy Act (B.C.) than the one claimed in Douez.

The Ladas claim, curiously, referred to a number of public-sector privacy laws as a basis for the class action, and the court dismissed these claims as providing no legal basis. The court did accept that there was a basis for a claim under the Privacy Act (B.C.) and similar legislation in 3 other provinces. However, the claim fell down on technical merit. It did not meet all of the requirements under the Class Proceedings Act: specifically, the court was not convinced that there was an “identifiable class” of 2 or more persons, and did not accept there were “common issues” among the proposed class members (assuming there was an identifiable class).

Thus, the class action was not certified. It was dismissed without leave to amend the pleadings.

Apple’s iOS software license agreement did not come into play, since the claim was dismissed on other grounds. If the claim had proceeded far enough to consider the iOS license, then it would surely have faced the same defences raised by Facebook in Douez. As the judgement noted: Apple argued that “every time a user updates the version of iOS running on the user’s iDevice, the user is prompted to decide whether the user wants to use Location Services by accepting the terms of Apple’s software licensing agreement. Apple relies on users taking such steps in its defence of the plaintiff’s claims. The legal effect of a user clicking on “consent” or “allow” or “ok” or “I agree” would be an issue on the merits in this action.”

Any test of Apple’s license agreement will have to wait for another day.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

–

By Richard Stobbe

Two privacy class actions earlier this year have pitted technology giants Facebook Inc. and Apple Inc. against Canadian consumers who allege privacy violations. The two cases resulted in very different outcomes.

First, the Facebook decision: In Douez v. Facebook, Inc., 2014 BCSC 953 (CanLII), the court looked at two basic questions:

1. Do British Columbian users of social media websites run by a foreign corporation have the protection of BC’s Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373?
2. Do the online terms of use for social media override these protections?

The plaintiff Ms. Douez alleged that Facebook used the names and likenesses of Facebook customers for advertising through so-called “Sponsored Stories”.  The claim alleges that Facebook ran the “Sponsored Stories” program without the permission of customers, contrary to of s. 3(2) of the B.C. Privacy Act which says:

“It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person to use the name or portrait of another for the purpose of advertising or promoting the sale of, or other trading in, property or services, unless that other, or a person entitled to consent on his or her behalf, consents to the use for that purpose.”

Interestingly, this Act was first introduced in B.C. in 1968, even before the advent of the primitive internet in 1969 .

Facebook argued that its Terms of Use precluded any claim in a B.C. court, due to the “Forum Selection Clause” which compels action in the State of California. The court accepted that, on its face, the Terms of Service were valid, clear and enforceable. However, the court went on to decide that the B.C. Privacy Act establishes unique claims and specific jurisdiction. The Act mandates that claims under it “must be heard and determined by the Supreme Court” in British Columbia. This convinced the court that Facebok’s Forum Selection Clause should be set aside in this case, and the claim should proceed in a B.C. court.

The class action was certified. Facebook has appealed. Stay tuned.

Next up, the Apple experience.

Calgary – 07:00 MST