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

Daniel (Dan) R. Chubb

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Joan Bilsland

Knowledge Management Research Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Knowledge Management Research Lawyer

Luke Stretch

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Associate

Canadian courts generally treat real estate deposits as forfeitable upon a purchaser&rsquo;s default, distinct from unenforceable penalty clauses. However, under the Redstone factors, courts may grant relief from forfeiture where a deposit is grossly disproportionate to the vendor&rsquo;s damages or where retaining it would be unconscionable in the circumstances.

When A Deposit Becomes A Penalty

When a Deposit Becomes a Penalty: Relief From Forfeiture in Real Estate Transactions

Simon P. Crawford

Leading Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Dana Talucci

Corporate Commercial Practice at Bennett Jones Toronto

Hennadiy Kutsenko

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

A court decision on the sale of mixed-use property highlights the risks of failing to allocate purchase price between residential and commercial portions for HST purposes. The ruling underscores the importance of precise drafting and obtaining representations to avoid uncertainty and tax disputes.

Mixed-Use Mixed Signals Why Purchase Price Allocations Matter

Mixed-Use, Mixed Signals: Why Purchase Price Allocations Matter

Leanne C. Krawchuk KC

Corporate, Mining & Construction Lawyer | Capital Markets

Partner, Corporate

James T. McClary

Private Equity and M&A Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Private equity investment in mining has grown over the past decade, driven largely by opportunities in mining sub-industries such as materials, software and industrial machinery despite persistent risk and scalability concerns. The article analyzes global and Canadian deal trends, structures and strategies, offering insights on where PE capital is being deployed and the outlook for investors and mining companies.

Private Equity Investment in Mining

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Sophia DiNicolo

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate 

The Ontario Superior Court in Dziedziejko v Canopy Growth held that materiality may be inferred from a significant share price drop following corrective disclosure, granting leave to pursue secondary market misrepresentation claims. The decision signals a potential shift from contextual materiality analysis and raises challenges for issuers with volatile share prices. 
<div>&nbsp;</div>

Inferring Materiality from Share Price Movement Dziedziejko v Canopy Growth

Inferring Materiality from Share Price Movement: Dziedziejko v Canopy Growth

Jonathan Hillson

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Alex Payne

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Prompt payment and dispute resolution reforms are changing how construction project participants are to be paid, their disputes determined and when liens are to be filed and holdbacks released.

Stephen Burns on Bill C-11

From the Same Authors