Evidence of meeting #32 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was patent.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Inwood, I'm sorry, we're going to have to leave that answer for the next round. We've run out of time.
I also want to remind members, because I know it's easy to forget, that Madam Yuyitung is here by video conference as well, so if there's an opportunity, please engage her along with the panel that's here with us.
Madame LeBlanc, pour cinq minutes.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Thank you very much.
My thanks to the witnesses for their presentations.
Ms. Beaudry, you alluded to the social impact of patents. Could you give us some more details about that? What impact does the acquisition of patents have on society, whether in universities or in business?
9:50 a.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Mathematical and Industrial Engineering, École Polytechnique de Montréal , As an Individual
If a business acquires a patent under licence that was developed in a university, it generates revenue, adds value and creates jobs. If the patented invention subsequently enhances the quality of life for Canadians and Quebeckers, society benefits. It really depends on the type of invention that is patented. I feel that university researchers must give some kind of thought to their impact on society, whether it comes one year later or 25 years. We must not necessarily see things in the short term. The impact may only become apparent in a much longer term.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Thank you.
Your research provided some really interesting information. Could you tell me if you are looking at other types of intellectual property? Patents and copyright are one thing, but intellectual property is often talked about as a kind of fence that is erected around an idea.
The difficulty of obtaining patents for software has been mentioned. I wonder if, for innovative technologies like nanotechnology or biotechnology, you have considered another type of intellectual property, a system that would be a little more open.
9:50 a.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Mathematical and Industrial Engineering, École Polytechnique de Montréal , As an Individual
I am currently conducting research on the openness of innovation in the aerospace industry. We are trying to see the extent to which innovation is open in the product development process.
You mentioned other types of intellectual property. Of course, secrecy is still very much a factor in the aerospace industry. If you are the first to market with a technology, your competitors are going to need a lot of time to catch up. Patenting some kinds of technologies in the aerospace industry doesn't help at all.
At the moment, if you compare Quebec and Brazil, you see that Brazil is more open in terms of innovation. In Quebec, companies are much more closed and secretive. They do not easily open up their processes of innovation. There are a lot of secrets kept inside companies. For example, even for a research consortium like CRIAQ, you basically have a tiny little group of people that trust each other. The innovation is open, but only within a very tightly closed circle.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Mr. Inwood, could you add anything about a more open innovation system, in other words, intellectual property that is more open and more flexible?
9:55 a.m.
Director, Commercialization, University of Waterloo
I would echo some of the same comments just made. If you look at the open source movement, for instance, there are no patents there. In fact, that community rails against patent protection and constraints on moving knowledge. There certainly are models of intellectual property being shared and value being extracted from that.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
I am going to ask you to clarify that.
Do you think it's more conducive to innovation as compared to a more rigid, structured IP?
9:55 a.m.
Director, Commercialization, University of Waterloo
Again, it depends. In the software community, moving fast is really the important thing. Having an open system, open source, works in that space. In industries where you have to make capital investments, such as chemical processing or manufacturing, where there's heavy equipment, there is a lot of risk in those capital investments. People want to make that investment with some surety that they have proprietary advantage. Patents, for instance, play a role in those spaces.
I think it's not one-size-fits-all. You really have to go industry by industry.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I know. Five minutes goes by at lightning speed.
Now we'll go on to Mr. Carmichael, for five minutes or less.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Chair. Yes, there is so little time, Madame.
I thank you all for your attention today.
Madam Beaudry, you made a statement that I think was important to today's hearings. You talked about blue-sky patents and creativity and there being a need to find ways to finance them as opposed to financing strictly those that are obviously going to be commercialized from the outset. I think that's a very important position to be in vis-à-vis innovation and creativity. It is what we have heard from the Jenkins report and others. As a country, we want to instill that creativity and find a way to create more. Whatever filters out to commercialization, whether it's at inception or is something that evolves, we have to keep that door open. I applaud you for your comment.
At the beginning, you mentioned, Ms. Yuyitung, that at McMaster University, you tend to go to the U.S. for those initial patents very quickly. I believe that it was you or Mr. Inwood.
I wanted to find out the difference in cost. What is the incentive to go to the U.S.? You talked about it being a simpler, less-costly registration process for the initial patents. Is that something that in Canada we should be paying strict attention to? How do we keep those creative and innovative thoughts and ideas here? Are we losing out right from the beginning?
Maybe I will start with McMaster University, if I could.
9:55 a.m.
Business Development Manager, McMaster Industry Liaison Office, McMaster University
I guess I should clarify. When we file a provisional patent application in the U.S., we're not saying we aren't going to file in Canada. It's just sort of a process mechanism to file in the U.S. first. It gives us 12 months to file a PCT. And then 18 months after that, we are able to say in which countries we will actually keep the patent alive. It's in that 18-month period, when you say that you're going to file in the U.S. only, or in the U.S. and Canada, or in the U.S. and Canada and Europe, that you choose whether it's going to stay in Canada.
Right now, we do file in Canada. I think some universities don't file in Canada. Part of the evaluation is that Canada is a much smaller market than the U.S. or other places. The other part, as Scott said, is that a lot of Canadian companies aren't here. The patent allows you to sort of prevent others from making, using, or selling. If companies aren't going to be making it or using it here, and you are selling it to the United States as a major market, it might not be of value to actually file a patent here and pay those patent costs here.
10 a.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
To do that, you would do those registrations concurrently rather than simultaneously. Is that correct?
10 a.m.
Director, Commercialization, University of Waterloo
The U.S. filing is basically just a place holder.
10 a.m.
Director, Commercialization, University of Waterloo
It's a place holder. Even Canadian corporations would likely file in the U.S. first, because for Canadian corporations the biggest market in the world is the U.S. So there would be a filing in the U.S. for a variety of technical reasons. If the filing starts there, there are certain aspects of U.S. patent law, for instance, that favour filings that are in the U.S. first. It's a major market.
This doesn't preclude our filing in Canada at the appropriate time—or anywhere in the world, for that matter.
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Director, Commercialization, University of Waterloo
Yes. There are some patent-related laws and precedents that drive people to file in the U.S. first, but it in no way precludes our filing in Canada at the appropriate juncture in the future. It's just a place holder.
10 a.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Earlier this month we heard from a witness that Canada is the place of second filings. My concern is that if we truly believe in keeping creativity and innovation here, at least from the outset, are we missing the boat on this? Are we missing the opportunity?
10 a.m.
Director, Commercialization, University of Waterloo
I don't think so, because even Canadian corporations, if they had to file one patent, would probably pick the U.S., because it's a big market. But they're operating out of Canada, so it's still a benefit to Canadian corporations.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay.
Madam Yuyitung, did you have more to offer on the last question that you hadn't completed?