E-TIPS® NEWSLETTER’S “2025: YEAR IN REVIEW”

Thank you for your readership over the last year and welcome to what we hope will be an exciting 2026!

In this year’s first issue of the E-TIPS® Newsletter, we will recap our most noteworthy reports from 2025, covering developments in intellectual property and information technology law under the following categories: (1) Legislative and Policy Developments, (2) Trademarks, (3) Patents, (4) Copyright, (5) Privacy and Cybersecurity, and (6) Artificial Intelligence.

This issue of E-TIPS® Newsletter’s “2025: Year in Review” is brought to you by M. Imtiaz Karamat, Steffi Tran, and Amy Ariganello. Remember, all of our past coverage – over 20 years’ worth – is accessible in our archive.

1. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

Significant Amendments To Trademarks Act And Regulations

In April 2025, several amendments to the Trademarks Act and Trademark Regulations came into force. Among other things, the amendments confer new authorities to the Registrar of Trademarks to: (i) give public notice that the prohibition to adopt or use a particular official mark no longer applies; (ii) treat an opposition or objection proceeding as withdrawn; (iii) award costs in proceedings before the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB); (iv) grant confidentiality orders; and (v) case-manage proceedings. The amendments aim to increase the efficiency of trademark dispute resolution and to discourage undesirable behaviours in proceedings.

A summary on the changes is available here. Our Trademarks Group also released detailed overviews on the amendments with respect to: (1) costs, confidentiality orders and case management (see here); and (2) changes to the official marks regime (see here).

Policies and court decisions issued after April were used to address nuances under the new framework, such as filing additional evidence under the Trademarks Act:

• Federal Court Guidelines on Filing Additional Evidence. In July 2025, the Federal Court of Canada (the FC) issued an update to its guidelines for appeals under s. 56(1) of the Trademarks Act, which set out new requirements for seeking leave to file additional evidence in certain trademark appeals. See here for more details.
• Federal Court Considers Whether Additional Evidence is Subject to Leave Requirement. In October 2025, the FC considered whether new affidavit evidence was subject to a new leave requirement under the current version of s. 56(5) of the Trademarks Act, which came into force on April 1, 2025. While the record containing the new evidence was filed on April 17, 2025, the new evidence was served on January 20, 2025, which resulted in it not being subject to the new leave requirement. Click here to read our full summary of this decision.

Major Changes Proposed For Rules Of Civil Procedure To Impact IP And IT Litigation In Ontario

In April 2025, a working group of lawyers and judges released its Phase 2 Consultation Paper (the Paper) proposing a massive overhaul to the Rules of Civil Procedure. The working group recommended switching from the present model, where parties and their counsel control the pace, to one that is governed by the court, with a view to bringing matters to trial within two years of commencement. The most significant changes outlined in the Paper included: (i) an upfront exchange of evidence; (ii) eliminating examinations for discovery; (iii) limiting document production; (iv) extending the basic limitation period; (v) expanded methods of service; and (vi) heightened consequences for delay. To read more about this matter, click here.

The Final Policy Report was released on December 15, 2025, and can be found here. The proposed reforms are expected to start coming into effect in 2026.

Guidelines For Recommending Hearings At Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB)

In June 2025, the PMPRB released new non-binding guidelines (the Guidelines) which came into effect on January 1, 2026. The Guidelines seek to: (i) address prior amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations; (ii) direct PMPRB staff on identifying candidates to recommend to the Chairperson for a hearing; and (iii) provide transparency to Rights Holders on the recommendation process followed by PMPRB staff. They also purport to incorporate court guidance that has arisen from the extensive litigation over the proposed changes. Our full report on this topic can be found here.

Major Updates To Ontario’s Privacy Laws And Guidelines Came Into Effect

In July 2025, several notable amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) came into force. The amendments introduced:

1. mandatory Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) for FIPPA institutions for any personal information (PI) that the institution intends to collect;
2. mandatory reporting to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (the IPC) for certain privacy breaches;
3. requirements for reasonable safeguards to protect PI against theft, loss, unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, modification, or disposal; and
4. authorization for the IPC to review the practices of institutions upon receiving a complaint.

For our full report on this matter, click here.

In October 2025, the IPC also updated its De-Identification Guidelines for Structured Data (the New Guidelines) with a new framework setting out terminology and key concepts for de-identification and providing sample use cases of de-identification techniques. The New Guidelines also outline a 12-step process for de-identifying structured datasets and contain multiple checklists to assist in implementing the techniques discussed in the document. Click here to read a detailed summary on this topic.

OPC Releases New Biometric Data Collection Guidance

For the federal privacy landscape, in August 2025, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) published new guidance for both the public and private sectors on protecting privacy in biometric initiatives. The OPC’s guidance addresses key considerations for organizations when planning and implementing initiatives involving biometric technology, such as appropriate purposes for collecting, using, and disclosing biometric data; the proportionality of potential privacy impacts; and consent requirements. The OPC’s guidance emphasizes the need for organizations to approach the use of biometric information in a privacy-protective way, establish openness and transparency in their practices, and build in privacy considerations at the beginning of any new initiative. For more information, you can read our full summary here.

2. TRADEMARKS

Federal Court Says TMOB Does Not Have Jurisdiction To Revisit Decisions Once Final

In February 2025, the FC in Chwaja v 0710674 BC Ltd. (Cottonmouth), 2025 FC 312, upheld a TMOB decision that declared a trademark application abandoned and clarified that the TMOB lacked jurisdiction to revisit its own decisions once final. Here, the applicant failed to serve a counter statement in a trademark opposition proceeding by the prescribed deadline, and the application was deemed abandoned. The applicant asked for the trademark to be reinstated, but the TMOB took the position that did not have jurisdiction to reinstate the application. The FC supported this position, concluding that “…trademarks applications, once refused, cannot be revisited by the decision maker after a final decision has been made”. Our report on the decision can be found here.

Updates In Grey Market Toyota Car Parts Case

In June 2025, the FC in Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (Toyota Motor Corporation) v Marrand Auto Inc., 2025 FC 1105, dismissed the appeal of a decision granting leave to Toyota Canada Inc. et al. to amend its statement of claim regarding the sale of grey market goods. The FC found that the lower court decision failed to consider “use” in the legal test for passing off, but this did not warrant interference on appeal. Also, the FC supported the lower court finding with respect to depreciation of goodwill, noting that the matter did not simply involve the resale of goods but potentially damaged goods that could, if proven, depreciate the goodwill associated with a trademark. To read our full report on this decision, click here.

Expansion Of Special Circumstances Excusing Non-Use Of Trademarks

In September 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Centric Brands Holding LLC v Stikeman Elliott LLP, 2025 FCA 161, overturned a decision to expunge a trademark for non-use. In this case, the owner of the relevant mark was unable to provide evidence of use as it acquired the mark shortly after the s. 45 notice was issued. The FCA considered jurisprudence involving circumstances where a change of trademark ownership occurred around the time a s. 45 notice was issued. Following its review, the FCA limited the time period for determining special circumstances excusing non-use of the mark to the period between the date of the mark’s purchase agreement and the date the s. 45 notice was issued (instead of the usual three-year period immediately preceding the issuance of the s. 45 notice). The FCA held that the recent acquisition of the mark, together with the short time until the end of the relevant period, constituted special circumstances excusing non-use. Our complete summary of this decision is available here.

3. PATENTS

Federal Court Of Appeal Addresses Missed Patent Maintenance Fees

In February 2025, the FCA in Taillefer v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 28, dismissed an appeal of a lower court decision, which rejected a patent holder’s request to reinstate his patent after it expired due to non-payment of maintenance fees. In this case, an email communication error resulted in the emails from a patent agent seeking payment instructions from the patent holder being delivered to the patent holder’s junk folder. Consequently, the patent’s maintenance fees were not paid and the patent was deemed to have expired. The FCA found that due care was required in this situation, including that (i) the patent agent should have alternative means in place to communicate with the patent holder; and (ii) the patent holder should have a system to monitor and pay fees. Our full report on the decision is available here.

In September 2025, in Canada (Attorney General) v Matco Tools Corporation, 2025 FCA 156, the FCA revisited the issue of due care. In this case, the FCA set aside a lower court decision which reinstated a patent application that was deemed abandoned following failure to pay maintenance fees. The failure to pay maintenance fees was the result of a series of communication errors involving the patentee’s patent agent, legal counsel and maintenance fee payment service provider. On appeal, the FCA clarified that the obligation to exercise due care must extend to a patentee’s patent agent and other authorized representatives, as they are the primary points of contact and the recipients of notices regarding the failure to pay a maintenance fee. The FCA therefore set aside the lower court decision and restored the Commissioner of Patents’ (the Commissioner’s) decision, which refused the respondent’s request to reinstate its abandoned patent application. Click here to read the full decision of the appellate court, and here to read our summary of the lower court’s decision from January 2025.

Technology And Patentability

Technology continued to challenge Canada’s established patent framework in 2025 with the following topics being of particular interest:

• AI Cannot be an “Inventor”. In June 2025, the Commissioner issued a decision refusing Canadian Patent Application No. 3,137,161, which refers to the artificial intelligence (AI) system “DABUS” as the inventor of the application’s subject matter. The Commissioner concluded that the term “inventor”, as contemplated in the Patent Act and Patent Rules, is limited to natural persons, and does not include legal persons or AI systems. Consequently, the Commissioner held that DABUS is not a valid inventor, and that the absence of an inventor precludes a lawful transfer of rights to a legal representative who would be permitted to file a valid patent application. Our summary of this decision is available here.

A Notice of Appeal challenging this decision was filed with the FC on December 5, 2025.

• Federal Court Decides on Subject-Matter Patentability Involving Computer Technology. In November 2025, the FC in Dusome v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1809, allowed judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner that refused a patent application for a method of playing a wagering poker game with either physical cards or a computerized system. The Commissioner refused the application because (i) the physical elements (i.e., playing cards and a computer system) were not novel and “not part of the actual invention”; and (ii) the remaining claimed subject matter lacked requisite physicality. The FC set aside the Commissioner’s decision and cautioned it against hastily concluding claimed subject-matter is not patentable because it involves the use of conventional computer technology. Our full summary of this decision is available here.

Patents Now Eligible For Additional Term Under Amended Patent Rules

In December 2025, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) announced that patentees can now apply for an additional patent term under Canada's amended Patent Rules to compensate for unreasonable delays in the processing of patent applications. There are a several requirements that must be fulfilled to obtain the additional term. The following are a few key considerations:

• Patent applications filed on or after December 1, 2020, may be eligible for an additional term if the patent is granted on or after December 2, 2025.
• A patent granted on or after December 2 may be eligible if the patent was issued after the later of (i) the third anniversary of the date of the request for examination; or (ii) the fifth anniversary of the patent’s applicable national entry date or filing date.
• Patentees must submit the application for an additional term within three months after the issue date of the patent.

Guidance on obtaining an additional term is consolidated in the new Chapter 32 of the Manual of Patent Office Practice.

4. COPYRIGHT

Government Of Canada’s Report Following Copyright And Generative AI Consultation

In February 2025, the Government of Canada published its report summarizing the results of its consultation regarding the effects of generative AI on copyright policy and the marketplace. The consultation gathered feedback from stakeholders on three key issues:

1. Use of Copyright-Protected Works in AI Training. Creators felt that AI training on copyrighted works without authorization violated their rights, whereas AI user groups felt copyright law was not engaged;
2. Authorship and Ownership for AI-Generated Content. Most stakeholders felt that only AI-generated content with sufficient human contribution should be protected under copyright law; and
3. Questions on Liability for Copyright Infringement. Most stakeholders felt that better transparency on the inputs used to train AI would assist rights holders in utilizing copyright remedies, where applicable.

To read our full report on this consultation, click here.

FCA Refuses To Certify Reverse Class Action For File Sharing Copyright Infringement

In July 2025, the FCA in Voltage Pictures, LLC v Salna, 2025 FCA 131, dismissed an appeal to certify a reverse class action proceeding in connection with claims for file-sharing copyright infringement. The decision ultimately turned on the FCA finding that a class action was not the preferable procedure for advancing the proceeding. Our summary of this decision is available here.

Federal Court Requires More Evidence To Grant Norwich Orders Against ISPs

In October 2025, the FC in Hellboy Productions, Inc. v DOE #1, 2025 FC 1766, denied several motions to obtain Norwich orders against three internet service providers (ISPs). The motions sought to compel the ISPs to disclose the names and addresses associated with over 2,400 internet protocol (IP) addresses. The FC found that two of the requirements for granting a Norwich order were not met in this case, namely: (i) there be a bona fide claim against the alleged wrongdoer; and (ii) the person from whom discovery is sought is more than an innocent bystander. Our full report on the decision is available here.

5. PRIVACY AND CYBERSECURITY

Launch Of Data Breach Risk Self-Assessment Tool

In March 2025, the OPC announced the availability of a new online tool to assist organizations in assessing the likelihood of whether a privacy breach creates a real risk of significant harm (RROSH) to individuals. The OPC clarified that the tool’s breach risk self-assessment result will aid organizations in determining their reporting and notification obligations but is only one element to consider in assessing a breach. Notably, results from the tool do not constitute a position or decision of the OPC. Click here to read more.

Notable Privacy Decisions

Provincial courts made waves with privacy decisions in 2025, including:

• Sections of Alberta’s Private Sector Privacy Law Found Unconstitutional. In May 2025, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (ABKB) in Clearview AI Inc v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2025 ABKB 287, found that sections of Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) were unconstitutional. In this case, Clearview AI Inc. (Clearview) sought judicial review of an order to cease certain activities in Alberta after it was investigated for its data scraping practices and found to have not obtained proper consent from individuals. Clearview argued that the Alberta Information & Privacy Commissioner’s interpretation of PIPA was unconstitutional as the consent requirements infringed Clearview’s freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter. This led the ABKB to determine that several sections of PIPA and its regulation were unconstitutional. Our full report on this decision can be found here.

We are closely monitoring this matter, including related appeals and legislative action.

• Cyber Incidents Trigger Notification Obligations Even Where Data Not Accessed. In September 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court (the Superior Court) in Hospital for Sick Children v Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2025 ONSC 5208, found that encryption-only cyber incidents still give rise to notification obligations. In this case, two hospitals experienced ransomware attacks that temporarily blocked access to individuals’ PI and personal health information (PHI), with no evidence of data being viewed, accessed, or exfiltrated – only encrypted. The IPC’s investigation concluded that these incidents constituted unauthorized “use” and “loss” of PI and PHI, and both hospitals failed to satisfy their notification obligations under law. The Superior Court noted that “use” can occur without direct interaction with the information. Click here to read our full summary of the decision.

Privacy Commissioner Investigations

In 2025, Canadian privacy commissioners completed several investigations into organizations, including the following noteworthy mentions:

• 23andMe Data Breach and Bankruptcy Raises Data Protection Issues. In April 2025, the OPC and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (collectively, the Offices) jointly issued a letter to 23andMe Holding Co.’s (23andMe’s) trustee in bankruptcy, reiterating the privacy protection requirements under Canadian and UK privacy laws. 

Later, in June 2025, the Offices released the findings of their joint investigation into the 23andMe global data breach of October 2023, concluding that 23andMe failed to implement sufficient security measures to protect the PI of its customers. To read more about these matters, click here and here.

• First AMP Issued by a Canadian Privacy Commissioner. In August 2025, the IPC in PHIPA Decision 298 issued the first administrative monetary penalty (AMP) of any privacy commissioner in Canada.  The IPC ordered an AMP of $5,000 against an individual and $7,500 against their organization for improperly accessing PHI and failing to meet their obligations under the Personal Health Information Protection Act. Our full report on this decision is available here.
• PIPEDA Right to De-List Information from Google Results. Also in August 2025, the OPC found that Google violated its obligations under PIPEDA by including certain media articles in the results of searches of a person’s name, which contained sensitive PI and led to direct harm. The OPC recognized that an individual has a right under PIPEDA to have information de-listed from search engine results under certain circumstances. Click here to read our report on the decision.
• TikTok’s Privacy Practices Inadequate for Protecting Children. In September 2025, the OPC and other provincial privacy commissioners released the findings of their joint investigation, which concluded that TikTok had inadequate measures in place to: (i) stop children from accessing the platform; and (ii) prevent the collection and use of their sensitive PI for profiling and targeting purposes. Our full report on the findings of the investigation is available here.

6. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Canada

In 2025, major Canadian developments regarding AI included:

• New Initiatives for Responsible AI Adoption. In March, the Government of Canada announced three new initiatives aimed at promoting the responsible and secure adoption of AI: (i) a refreshed membership for the Advisory Council on AI; (ii) the launch of the Safe and Secure AI Advisory Group; and (iii) the release of a guide to support the implementation of Canada’s Voluntary Code of Conduct on the Responsible Development and Management of Advanced Generative AI Systems. Click here to read our full summary.
• A Cautionary Tale for Using AI in Courtrooms. In May, the Superior Court in Ko v Li, 2025 ONSC 2766, commented on the use of AI in preparing court documents and the possibility of citing counsel for contempt of court for delivering a factum generated by AI containing multiple errors. Read our summary of this decision here.

In December, the Superior Court in Ko v Li, 2025 ONSC 6785, revisited this matter after counsel voluntarily wrote to the court to disclose deliberate, untruthful and misleading oral and written statements made during the May proceedings. The Superior Court has directed the scheduling of a case conference to discuss the criminal contempt proceedings.

United States of America

There were also several legislative and judicial decisions surrounding AI in the US, including:

• US Courts Decide on AI Copyright Cases. In February, a Delaware court in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH and West Publishing Corp., v Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB, found that using copyrighted headnotes, among other materials, to train an AI platform constituted copyright infringement.

In March, a D.C. Court, in Thaler v Perlmutter, No. 1:22-cv-01564, denied copyright protection for AI-generated artwork, as an AI system cannot be an “author” under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.

In June, a California court, in Bartz v Anthropic PBC, C 24-05417 WHA (N.D.Ca.), held that Anthropic PBC’s use of legally obtained works to train its AI models constituted fair use under the U.S. Copyright Act. However, this finding did not extend to Anthropic PBC’s use of pirated copies for such training.

Our summaries of the above decisions are here, here, and here, respectively.

• Landmark US Bill for AI Harms and Deepfake Abuse. In April, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill titled the “Take it Down Act”, aimed at combating deepfake pornography by requiring social media platforms to remove explicit images found on their sites. Read our summary of the bill here.

Europe

The AI regulatory landscape in the European Union continued to evolve in 2025. In July, the European Commission published the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (the Code), which offers voluntary guidance for general-purpose AI model providers to meet certain obligations under the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. The Code is intended to reduce administrative burden on AI providers and is composed of three chapters: (i) transparency; (ii) copyright; and (iii) safety and security. Click here to read our report on this topic.