a need for improved IP messaging
There are many government IP initiatives in Canada today. They have money, resources, networks, press when they want it and infrastructure.
Unfortunately, their messaging is not always clear and sometimes contains IP-ish phrasing. Similar messaging appeared when BDC’s IP-backed Financing launched in 2020.
Today, I want to look at 4 sentences at the start of an announcement for an upcoming seminar from one of the above initiatives. The sentences are numbered for clarity of discussion.
the 4 sentences
“Over the past 20 years, Canadian patents owned by foreign firms have tripled. (1) Meanwhile, the role of IP assets in Canada’s economy has been diminishing since 2000. (2)
The implications of these trends are significant. (3)
With more foreign ownership of locally invented patents, Canadian businesses may have limited opportunities to benefit from their innovations. (4)”
some thoughts
Below are some thoughts on three of the sentences. Each sentence had to be read more than once to determine a gist of meaning.
(1) Is the focus on actual Canadian patents i.e. patents from CIPO or are they discussing patents stemming from Canadian-based research? I suspect it is the latter as the former seems unlikely. In my experience most foreign companies are not active filers in front of CIPO. Further, it appears the author is trying to differentiate IP owned by foreign-owned and Canadian-owned corporations.
(2) Reference to the Canadian economy strikes as incorrect because both foreign-owned and Canadian-owned research within Canada adds to economic activity. In fact, foreign-owned corporations are contributing more to the instant economy as we just learned of their increased IP activity. Thus, it seems likely that this sentence is intended to point to the role of IP assets within Canadian-owned corporations, not the overall economy.
(4) What is a locally invented patent? The phrase is odd and implies that patents are being invented. Instead, there are patents stemming from or capturing of local inventions. The phrase does however tell us that my interpretation of sentence (2) is correct. Then there is an incomplete, if not obtuse jump to FTO concepts. There are many possible jurisdictions of patents, and any limitations are based on where the Canadian corporations are operating and what others are protecting in those jurisdictions.
suggested copy
Now is is time to suggest a clearer, more consistent message. I retained original wording and phrasing as much as possible.
“Over the past 20 years, foreign-owned firms have tripled the number of patents associated with inventions Made in Canada. Meanwhile, in the same timeframe the role of IP assets in Canadian-owned companies has greatly diminished.
These trends are significant and lead straight to FTO.
The increased patenting activity around foreign-owned domestic research is a clear reminder that others are actively protecting their IP assets. Such activity may lead to patents in any number of jurisdictions where Canadian companies are active, increasing the likelihood that IP-inactive Canadian companies will experience reduced FTO. Canadian businesses need to better protect their innovation. It is that simple!”
The government initiatives have an enviable amount of support and resources. It is a shame that the messaging does not always provide the desired level of confidence.