People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Manage Cookies

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Edward (Ted) Yoo

Patent & Trademark Agent | Biotech, Pharma & Tech Innovations

Partner, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Ahmed Elmallah

Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

Counsel, Patent Agent, Trademark Agent

Joshua Kim

Articling Student at Bennett Jones in Edmonton

Articling Student 

The Alberta Court of King&rsquo;s Bench decision in SHAC Solutions Inc v Guenther confirms that intellectual property includes confidential processes, trade secrets and institutional know-how. The Court&rsquo;s injunction highlights the power of confidentiality agreements and the irreparable harm that can result from misuse of confidential information.

Protecting Your Proprietary Information Lessons from SHAC Solutions Inc v Guenther

Protecting Your Proprietary Information: Lessons from SHAC Solutions Inc v Guenther

Lorelei Graham

IP Lawyer | Food & Agribusiness

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

Kristopher R. Hanc

M&A and Capital Markets Lawyer

Christopher J. Doucet

Corporate & Mining Lawyer | M&A & Corporate Finance

Aidyn Bhatia

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) has launched a broad consultation on modernizing the regulation of public companies, examining venture issuer status, financial reporting, resale restrictions, material change reporting and alignment with U.S. developments. The Consultation Paper includes a proposed qualified institutional purchaser exemption that could provide eligible reporting issuers with greater flexibility to raise capital without traditional resale hold periods. Stakeholders have until November 13, 2026, to submit comments.

CSA Publishes Sweeping Consultation on Modernizing the Regulation of Public Companies

Meg Tweedlie

Director, Student Talent

Samuel Judson

Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Change of control provisions in commercial leases can create uncertainty for both landlords and tenants, particularly where terms such as &ldquo;control&rdquo; and &ldquo;effective control&rdquo; are undefined. This article examines the Canadian legal landscape, key case law and Section 23 of Ontario&rsquo;s Commercial Tenancies Act, and offers practical considerations for drafting and negotiating change of control provisions. It also highlights potential carve-outs and strategies to reduce ambiguity and the risk of future disputes.

change of Control of Commercial Tenants Drafting

Change of Control of Commercial Tenants: Drafting, Interpretation and Practical Considerations

Akhila Sandhu

Summer Student

Morgan Sutherland

Associate 

Michael C. Smith

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The United Nations has adopted the first global regulatory framework for Automated Driving Systems, establishing safety, cybersecurity, testing and monitoring requirements for Level 3, 4 and 5 automated vehicles. This article examines the framework&rsquo;s implications for Canada, including how Transport Canada may incorporate the requirements into domestic vehicle safety standards and what manufacturers and suppliers should consider as regulation evolves.

First Global Regulatory Framework For Autonomous Vehicles

First Global Regulatory Framework For Autonomous Vehicles: Key Takeaways For Canada And The Auto Industry

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory

Michael P. Theroux KC

Commercial Litigation, Arbitration & Energy Litigation Lawyer

Partner 

Brynne Harding

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The Supreme Court of Canada has resolved one of the most consequential questions left open by Vavilov, and which has divided jurisprudence in lower courts since then&mdash;whether judicial review is constitutionally guaranteed or can be barred by privative clauses.

Big Implications for Appeals from Administrative Tribunals

The Supreme Court Settles the Constitutional Floor for Judicial Review in Democracy Watch v Canada

Ethan Z. Schiff

Class Actions & Commercial Litigation Lawyer

Jenna Vivian

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Edmonton

The Supreme Court of Canada&rsquo;s decision in SS&amp;C Technologies Canada Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, 2026 SCC 29, revisits the doctrine of spoliation and confirms that courts must draw an adverse inference when intentional destruction of relevant evidence is established. The decision provides guidance on the test for spoliation, the scope of mandatory adverse inferences and the importance of preserving evidence during litigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Mandatory Adverse Inference in Cases of Spoliation

The Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Mandatory Adverse Inference for Spoliation

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

Funding and Protecting Your R&D: Opportunities in the Energy Services Industry

From the Same Authors