After more than a year of negotiations, Canada, the United States and Mexico have struck a trade deal that will replace the North American Free Trade Agreement once fully ratified.
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) was finalized in the final hours before the midnight deadline for Canada to come on board. Had an agreement with Canada not been reached, Mexico and the United States were ready to go ahead with their own bilateral agreement.
The United States has published the text of the agreement online. While this text is still subject to legal review for accuracy, clarity and consistency, it provides insight into the details of the newly negotiated deal.
Here is what some of the changes to intellectual property rights outlined in Chapter 20 could mean for Canadians:
- New biologic medicines will be afforded at least 10 years of data protection. This means that, for a given biologic medicine, less expensive subsequent-entry biologics (SEBs) will not be able to enter the market for at least 10 years. Currently, biologics are only afforded 8 years of data protection from competition in Canada. An increase in the period of data protection of biologic drugs may raise drug costs;
- Trade secret protections (e.g., criminal penalties for unauthorized and wilful misappropriation of a trade secret);
- Copyright protection will extend to at least 70 years following the death of the author (up from the previous 50 year term following the death of the author);
- Patent term restoration for unreasonable patent office delays (a first in Canada); and
- Continued use of Canada’s Notice and Notice regime to address online copyright infringement, despite pressure from the United States to adopt its “Notice and Takedown” regime.
The effects of the USMCA will remain uncertain until the agreement has been ratified by all three countries. The Goodmans IP Team will continue to provide updates regarding the implications of the USMCA over the coming weeks and months.
Author: Jaclyn Tilak
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@hermez777
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…