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

Ahmed Elmallah

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Counsel, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Edward (Ted) Yoo

Patent & Trademark Agent | Biotech, Pharma & Tech Innovations

Partner, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Lorelei Graham

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

Partner

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

Artem N. Barsukov FCIArb

International Arbitration Lawyer

Edward W. Hulshof

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

Paige Lutz

Articling Student at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Articling Student

The Alberta Court of Appeal clarified that broadly worded arbitration clauses can extend to statutory claims, including those under the Tort-Feasors Act. Overturning the uncertainty created by Orica, the Court confirmed that parties will be held to their agreement to arbitrate, even where claims arise by operation of law. The decision reinforces commercial certainty and helps avoid parallel proceedings and inconsistent outcomes.

Alberta Court of Appeal Provides Antidote to Consternation on Scope of Arbitration Clauses

Anu Nijhawan

M&A, Corporate Financing and International Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Lead Director and Partner

Hennadiy Kutsenko

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Counsel

Talia K. Bregman

Management-side Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Recent guidance from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development provides important clarity on when cross-border remote work arrangements may give rise to a permanent establishment under international tax treaties. The analysis focuses on key indicators such as the duration of remote work and whether there is a commercial reason for an employee&rsquo;s presence in a jurisdiction. The article also outlines practical steps employers can take to mitigate tax risk and manage a globally distributed workforce.

Remote Work Without Borders But Not Necessarily Without Tax Consequences

Remote Work Without Borders—But Not Necessarily Without Tax Consequences: OECD Guidance for a Post-Pandemic World

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

Pavan Pasha

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In Cervantes v. Pizza Nova Take Out Ltd., the Ontario Divisional Court clarified that civil conspiracy claims must allege an agreement or common design among defendants. The Court held that compliance with a franchisor&rsquo;s requirements alone does not constitute conspiracy. This decision reinforces the need for precise pleadings and upholds the principle of corporate separateness in class action claims.

No Agreement No Conspiracy Ontario Court Affirms Civil Conspiracy Requires a Pleaded Agreement

No Agreement, No Conspiracy: Ontario Court Affirms Civil Conspiracy Requires a Pleaded Agreement

Cheryl M. Woodin

Commercial Litigation & Trial Lawyer

Emrys Davis

Competition & Antitrust Litigation Lawyer

Kolding Larson

Commercial Transactions Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Federal Court dismissed a proposed C$5B class action alleging a nationwide conspiracy to fix generic drug prices, finding no basis in fact and denying certification. The decision underscores the Court&rsquo;s gatekeeping role and confirms that US enforcement actions and generalized market theories are insufficient to support competition claims in Canada without clear, particularized evidence.

Federal Court Dismisses 5 Billion Generic Drug Price Fixing Class Action

Federal Court Dismisses C$5 Billion Generic Drug Price-Fixing Class Action 

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Andrew Young

Mackenzie Thomas

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Issue 41 of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes examines recent developments in Canadian tax litigation, with a focus on jurisdictional limits, procedural compliance, and case management in the Tax Court of Canada. Featuring commentary from members of the Bennett Jones Tax group, this edition analyzes key decisions including MEGlobal, Culig, and Opheim, and provides practical guidance for taxpayers and advisors navigating tax disputes.

Introduction to Anti-Spam Law

From the Same Authors