On Monday October 5, 2015, the Canadian Federal government
announced that Canada had concluded negotiations and become one of
the founding members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade
agreement between 12 Pacific Rim countries, including the United
States of America, Japan, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand and
The TPP, which must be ratified by all 12 member countries to
come into effect, has the potential for wide-spread consequences
across Canadian industry. While text of the TPP has yet to be
published, the government released a technical summary on intellectual property
which describes some of the proposed consequences for intellectual
property laws in Canada and the TPP member countries,
Changes to copyright enforcement to
reflect "or" build upon Canada's obligations under
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet
In line with Canada's agreement
with the European Union, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade
see here for more detailed discussion of CETA), preserves
Canada's ability to meet its obligations regarding patent term
restoration for regulatory approval delays, while maintaining its
two-year export exception and cap on additional protection;
Reflects Canada's patent linkage
(Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations), clinical
trial data protection, and early working exemption regimes;
Changes to rules regarding opposition
to and cancellation of future geographical indications;
Changes, if any, in line with
Canada's existing regime, and consistent with the Hague
Requiring TPP member countries to
implement border enforcement measures to prevent and detain
counterfeit or pirated goods (similar to those under the Combating
Counterfeit Products Act;
see here for more detailed discussion of the CCPA).
It will be interesting to see the specific TPP trade agreement
language in the coming days to determine whether such rumoured
issues as copyright term extension, clinical trial data protection
extension, and a counterfeit goods-in-transit prohibition, are also
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Federal Court dismissed a motion by Apotex seeking particulars from Allergan's pleading relating to the prior art, inventive concept, promised utility and sound prediction of utility of the patents at issue.
Last year we saw the Canadian Courts release trademark decisions that granted a rare interlocutory injunction, issued jailed sentences for failure to comply with injunctive relief, grappled with trademark and internet issues...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).