People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Bruce A. Hibbard

Public and Private Capital Markets, Investment Fund and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner 

Gary S.A. Solway

Technology, Media and Entertainment, Corporate Commercial and Governance Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

On May 14, 2015, the securities regulators of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Québec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (the Crowdfunding Jurisdictions) announced that they have implemented, or expect to implement, exemptions that will allow Canadian start-ups and early-stage companies to raise capital through crowdfunding. The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) expects to announce its own crowdfunding rules in the Fall of 2015.

More Provinces Crowd into Crowdfunding but Not Yet Ontario or Alberta

More Provinces Crowd into Crowdfunding, but Not Yet Ontario or Alberta

Sander A.J.R. Grieve KC

Global Mining Finance, M&A, Exploration, Development and Extraction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Ali J. Naushahi

Securities, Corporate Finance, Mergers and Acquisitions and Mining Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

On April 9, 2015, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) published CSA Staff Notice 43-309 - Review of Website Investor Presentations by Mining Issuers (the Staff Notice), which summarizes the findings of a review of 130 investor presentations (the Reviewed Presentations) posted on websites of pre-production stage mining issuers. The Staff Notice reminds mining issuers that investor presentations and other information found on an issuer's website constitute "written disclosure" for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101) and, therefore, must comply with NI 43-101's disclosure requirements as well as the forward looking information (FLI) requirements of National Instrument 51-102 – Continuous Disclosure Obligations. The Staff Notice also suggests ways to improve compliance in designing investor presentations and websites to meet disclosure obligations.

Miners Beware Regulators Read Your Investor Presentations

Miners Beware: Regulators Read Your Investor Presentations

Co-authored "Degree of Detail in Board Minutes: Too Much or Too Little?" in Corporate Governance Journal, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2007

Degree of Detail in Board Minutes Too Much or Too Little

Degree of Detail in Board Minutes: Too Much or Too Little?

Co-authored “The Role of Management of a Potential M&A Target – Keeping the Board Involved” in Corporate Governance Journal, Vol. VI, No. 2, 2007

The Role of Management of a Potential MA Target – Keeping the Board Involved

The Role of Management of a Potential M&A Target – Keeping the Board Involved

Ahmed Elmallah

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Counsel, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Edward (Ted) Yoo

Intellectual Property Lawyer and Canada/US Patent and Trademark Agent at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Partner, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Lorelei Graham

Food and Agribusiness Lawyer, IP Lawyer, Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

How an AI system is commercialized and deployed also affects whether patent protection is appropriate. In many cases, the degree of control retained by the provider over the deployed system acts as a counterweight to other considerations that might otherwise favor trade secret protection.

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool IV

The Business Delivery Model

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? Factor IV

This article forms one part of a broader decision framework for evaluating whether patent or trade secret protection is appropriate for AI innovation.&nbsp;The framework is designed to help decision-makers (e.g., innovaters, in house, CTOs) align patent and IP strategy with underlying business realities and moving beyond purely "legal" considerations.&nbsp;
Within that framework, this article addresses a second decision factor: what is the realistic patent scope for the AI innovation?&nbsp;An AI patent with meaningful scope can block competitors from implementing commercially viable alternatives. Assessing enforceable scope therefore requires focusing on some of the following factors: (a) competitor blocking potential; (b) detectability of infringement; and (c) divided infringement.

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool II

The Enforceable Patent Scope

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? Factor II

Defensive blocking considers whether a patent can prevent others from patenting or controlling adjacent technical or commercial space. It matters for two main reasons: (i) to stop competitors from obtaining patents that could later restrict your ability to operate, and (ii) to provide leverage for counter-assertion if a competitor brings a patent claim against you.

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool VI

Competitor Defensive Positioning

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor VI

Finally, and most importantly, patentable potential addresses whether the innovation is likely to satisfy the main requirements for patentability: novelty, non-obviousness and subject-matter requirements. This assessment is highly fact-specific and depends on the prior art landscape and how the invention is framed. Early analysis helps determine whether patent protection is realistic and worth pursuing.

AI Patents A Corporate Decision Tool VII

Patentability Potential & Layered Strategies

AI: Is Patenting Really the Right Move? - Factor VII

This article forms one part of a broader decision framework for evaluating whether patent or trade secret protection is appropriate for AI innovation. The framework is designed to help decision-makers (e.g., innovators, in house, CTOs) align patent and IP strategy with underlying business realities and moving beyond purely "legal" considerations.&nbsp;Reproducibility considers whether a competitor could realistically replicate the innovation by reviewing your public materials or otherwise by obtaining limited access to the system itself.

Canada-China Lawyers Forum

Authors


Bennett Jones Speaking Engagement Canada-China Lawyers Forum October 1, 2007 Authors Co-presented “Opportunity for Dual Listings in Canada - A Case Study of a Successful TSX-HKSE Dual Listing” at the Canada-China Lawyers Forum sponsored by the Canada-China Lawyers Foundation in Toronto, Canada. Share by Email Social Media Download Download Subscribe Republishing Requests For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Peter Zvanitajs at ZvanitajsP@bennettjones.com. For informational purposes only This publication provides an overview of legal trends and updates for informational purposes only. For personalized legal advice, please contact the authors. Authors , • •