Skip to content

The great IP debate in Canada

By Daniela Bassan, K.C.

Daniela Bassan, K.C. is a Partner and Practice Group Chair at the law firm of Stewart McKelvey (Canada) where she focuses on intellectual property and complex, multi-jurisdictional dispute resolution.

The premise of this essay is that there is a significant gap in domestic-owned intellectual property (IP) in Canada as measured by key indicators such as patent ownership and corresponding levels of R&D investment.

The thesis of this essay is that deep collaboration among policy makers is needed to close that gap and increase Canadian competitiveness.


The Dilemma of the IP Ownership Gap

Today’s economy is not only data-driven (DD) but increasingly AI-supported such that generating and capturing the value of intangibles, i.e IP assets, is more critical than ever to a nation’s growth and competitiveness.  In addition, while IP spans a wide gamut of rights, patents in particular (as well as their overlap with R&D investment) can be used to measure a country’s position as an IP leader or laggard.

Studies and statistics consistently show that Canada is lagging on both IP ownership and innovation fronts:

  • The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) forecast in 2021 that Canada would be the worst-performing economy for the period 2020 to 2030.[i]
  • Levels of Canadian R&D investment, whether as gross domestic expenditure or by business enterprise, have fallen as a percentage of GDP since the early 2000s.[ii]
  • The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) reported that of all patents granted by the office from 2006 to 2016, about 12% were to Canadian residents.[iii]
  • Across 15 Canadian universities where R&D is heavily concentrated in Canada, there were 2,381 patents granted over a ten year period (2006 to 2015); however, corresponding levels of R&D funding over the same period show that patent count is a fraction of where it could (should) be.[iv]
  • Of the patents generated by Canadian universities over the same ten year period, there was a net generation in favour of foreign companies, thereby translating into a net deficit for the Canadian innovation ecosystem.[v]
  • The number of unicorns (i.e. privately owned companies with a valuation of US $1 billion or more) is disproportionality lower in Canada when compared to (and adjusted for population/size) to the United States. [vi]

So why does this matter? Three words: Freedom To Operate (FTO).

In essence, FTO represents both positive and negative rights against competing firms in the same industry, sector, or technology covered by the FTO.  If a firm has FTO over certain technology it can assert its IP position against competitors and collect rents (royalties) from anyone licensed to use that IP-protected technology.  Conversely, the same firm can use its FTO to halt other market players, penalize third parties, and build market dominance over the subject technology.

From a state perspective, in today’s DD / AI economy, the more foreign FTO that is being asserted, the less opportunity there is for domestic innovators to dominate, scale, and compete.


Coordination of Strategies and Solutions

Across Canada, awareness of this dilemma is acute.  Recent initiatives support the commercialization of new inventions from public institutions as well as IP programs to assist Canadian startups.[vii]

Each initiative targets, in part, the IP ownership gap in Canada.  However, the race to acquire more FTO for more Canadian companies on a global scale will require more collective effort across agencies, ministries, and governments.

There are a number of reasons why collaboration makes the most sense.

  • First, there is an urgent need to build IP capacity across provinces, regions, and target sectors.  The pool of IP experts in Canada is finite; accessing their collective experience and expertise requires coordination across entities that may not have been natural collaborators in the past.  For example, provincial governments should collaborate more openly in their FTO journeys, in order to optimize access to the same IP resources.
  • Second, the process of identifying and acquiring IP rights can be bewilderingly complex for startups (and even larger entities). Being able to commoditize the IP process from start to finish on a national scale, or even at a regional level, would go a long way toward creating a “one-stop-shopping” approach to acquiring FTO.
  • Third, while there is significant IP funding available, more strategic direction is needed hon the best use of those funds.  This means realigning and reorganizing existing funding so as to avoid reinventing the wheel in foundational areas. For example, the delivery of high-calibre, high volume training and programming should be scaled dramatically at a national level with the use of advanced EdTech platforms, thereby replacing outdated and inefficient education campaigns.

Adopting these strategies and solutions would go a long way toward carving a new FTO path for Canadian innovators.

This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact the author.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.


[i]            See David Williams: “OECD predicts Canada will be the worst performing advanced economy over the next decade… and the three decades after that” (2021) at Figure 1a.
[ii]           See ISED Report “Building a Nation of Innovators” (2019) at at page 11.
[iii]           See CIPO IP Canada Report (2017) at at pages 8-10.
[iv]          See James Hinton et al: “Economic Mirage: How Universities Impact Freedom To Operate” at at pages 8-10.
[v]           See James W. Hinton et al: “Economic Mirage: How Universities Impact Freedom To Operate” at at page 15.
[vi]          See “Number of unicorns globally as of November 2022” published Nov 30, 2022 at
[vii]         For example, Axelys in Quebec, Intellectual Property Ontario, Innovation Asset Collective, Springboard Atlantic, and CIPO’s Elevate IP and IP Assist programs.  The author of this essay is a Director at Innovation Asset Collective.



Search Archive


Cybersecurity class actions against database defendants persist, but hurdles for plaintiffs remain

July 25, 2024

By Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Meaghan McCaw and Bertina Lou[1] Two decisions earlier this month from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia left open the question as to whether so-called “database defendants” can be held…

Read More

Let’s talk about batteries: Nova Scotia Power’s latest development in renewable energy

July 18, 2024

In conjunction with our upcoming sponsorship of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce luncheon, featuring the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources the Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, we are pleased to present a Thought Leadership article highlighting…

Read More

“Sale” away: The SCC’s more flexible approach to exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods

July 9, 2024

By Jennifer Taylor & Marina Luro A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision has clarified how to interpret exclusion clauses in sale of goods contracts. The Court in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v Pine Valley…

Read More

Recent case re-confirms temporary ailment is not a disability

June 24, 2024

By Mark Tector and Tiegan A. Scott Decision On April 3, 2024, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ABKB”) upheld a decision of the Chief of the Commissions and Tribunals (the “CCT Decision”), which held…

Read More

Compensation for expropriation: Fair, but not more than fair

June 17, 2024

By Erin Best, Stephen Penney, Robert Bradley, Megan Kieley1 and Elizabeth Fleet1 Expropriation is a live issue in Canadian courts. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to broaden the test for constructive expropriation in Annapolis…

Read More

Changes affecting federally regulated employers

June 10, 2024

By Killian McParland and Sophie Poulos There have been many changes in recent months affecting employers governed by federal labour and employment laws. In September 2024, Stewart McKelvey will be hosting a webinar to review…

Read More

Impending changes to Nova Scotia’s Workers’ Compensation Act – Gradual onset stress

June 4, 2024

By Mark Tector and Annie Gray What’s changing? Currently, workers’ compensation coverage in Nova Scotia applies to only a narrow subset of psychological injuries. Specifically, in Nova Scotia – as in all Atlantic Provinces –…

Read More

Appeal Courts uphold substantial costs awards for regulators

May 22, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Michiko Gartshore Professional regulators can incur substantial costs through discipline processes. These costs are often associated with investigations, hearings as well as committee member expenses and are an unfortunate by-product of…

Read More

Less than two weeks to go … Canada Supply Chain Transparency Reports are due May 31st

May 21, 2024

By Christine Pound, ICD.D., Twila Reid, ICD.D., Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Sheila Mecking, Hilary Newman, and Daniel Roth Introduction The first reports under the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the…

Read More

Court upheld municipality’s refusal to disclose investigation report

May 1, 2024

By Sheila Mecking and Sarah Dever Letson A recent decision out of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick,[1] upheld the Municipality of Tantramar’s decision to withhold a Workplace Assessment Report under section 20(1)…

Read More

Search Archive

Scroll To Top