|
January 18, 2017
Osgoode’s Clinical Education & Intensive Programs Info Session
Please attend to learn about the IP Intensive Program, 12:30 – 2:30 PM, Moot Court & Helliwell Centre, click for details.
February 1, 2017
SAVE THE DATE!
IP Osgoode Speaks Series featuring Prof. Ryan Calo, more details to come. February 24 – 25, 2017
9th Annual Fox IP Moot
Visit the Fox IP Moot website for more information. March 16 – 18, 2017
15th Annual Oxford International IP Law Moot Competition
Visit the Oxford IP Moot website for more information.
| |
| December 6, 2016
The USPTO will hear oral arguments from the two parties that claim to have been the first to use CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology in eukaryotic cells.
| |
| Case Western Reserve University, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, GestVision, Inc., and Global Good Fund at Intellectual Ventures are the winners of this year’s Patents for Humanity Award. Launched by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in February 2012 as part of an Obama administration initiative, the Patents for Humanity program promotes game-changing innovations that solve long-standing development challenges. The award is the USPTO’s top honor for recognizing patent owners and licensees who use game-changing technology to meet global humanitarian challenges. In addition to being recognized for their work, winners also receive accelerated processing of select matters at the USPTO.
| |
|
| The IPIGRAM (6 December 2016)
Feature Posts
| |
| Professors and Leading Scholars Respond to the IPO's Request for Views on Modernising the European Copyright Framework
| |
|
Announcing the 9th Annual Canada's IP Writing Challenge
The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC) and IP Osgoode are delighted to announce our 2017 Canadian writing challenge in intellectual property law.
| | | |
| | |
Bringing Biologics in from the Cold: Does Canada's IP Regime Need a Booster?
As ratification stutters for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the much-maligned free-trade deal between Canada and the European Union, debate continues as to whether the Canadian intellectual property (IP) regime will provide adequate protection for innovative biologic medicines in relation to subsequent-entry biologics (SEBs). Biologic medicines are complex molecules derived from living organisms and include a wide range of therapies, such as vaccines, hormones and antibodies.[1] An SEB is a biologic that enters the market subsequent to a previously authorized reference biologic with which it has demonstrated similarity.[2] Importantly, an SEB may benefit from accelerated regulatory approval by relying, in part, on data previously submitted for its reference biologic.[3] Unlike small molecule generic pharmaceuticals that can be identical and, thus, bioequivalent to their reference products, SEBs will typically contain notable differences despite sharing the same core manufacturing process.[4] Stephen J. Dalby is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Stephen is currently enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.
| | |
| RECENT POSTS
Patenting the Online Peer Review Process?
Yes, it is apparently possible – Elsevier just did it. Elsevier is one of the largest science and medical publishers in the world. Prestigious journals, such as Cell and The Lancet, are amongst its products. Over the years, it has been the subject of a number of criticisms, including its pricing regime (see here, here and here), its strong stance against academics posting their own articles on university archives (see here and here) and other platforms (see here and here), and the sale of open access articles (see here). Sue (Zhonghui) Fei is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Sue is currently enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.
(Ir)Rational Choice Theory: Prof. Chris Buccafusco's Search for the Biases of Creativity What happens when intellectual property law collides with the social sciences? They meld together for some fascinating experiments. In a lecture given at Osgoode Hall Law School as part of the IP Osgoode Speaks Series, Prof. Chris Buccafusco described three such experiments performed by him and his team.[1] Specifically, their research seeks to develop an understanding of the nuances that drive creative behaviour in intellectual property markets.
Mike Noel is an IPilogue Editor and a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.
| |
|
