Government of Canada Permits Compulsory Licensing to Respond to COVID-19
On March 25, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bill C-13 received Royal Assent. Among other things, Bill C-13 amends the Patent Act to permit compulsory licensing to respond to a “public health emergency that is a matter of national concern”.
More specifically, Part 12 of Bill C-13 amends the Patent Act to permit the Government of Canada, upon application to the Commissioner of Patents, to make, construct, use and sell a patented invention to the extent it is necessary to respond to a public health emergency.
Bill C-13 indicates that the relevant patentee is to be paid any amount the Commissioner considers to be “adequate remuneration in the circumstances, taking into account the economic value of the authorization and the extent to which they make, construct, use and sell the patented invention”. Bill C-13 explicitly provides that the authorized use, sale or construction of the patented invention, in relation to a public health emergency, does not infringe the patent.
The authorization expires up to one year after the day on which it is granted, and authorizations may not be granted after September 30, 2020.
Patentees may apply to the Federal Court for an order requiring the Government of Canada to cease making, constructing, using or selling the patented invention in a manner that is inconsistent with the authorization.
Part 9 of Bill C-13 also amends the Food and Drugs Act to, among other things, “prevent shortages of therapeutic products in Canada or alleviating those shortages or their effects, in order to protect human health”
For further information on these developments, please contact any member of the Goodmans IP Team.
Authors: Jordan Scopa and Jaclyn Tilak
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@hush52
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…