Canada: USMCA strengthens IP protection

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Canada: USMCA strengthens IP protection

As a party to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Canada has agreed to adopt important new protections for biologic and other pharmaceutical innovation, as well as other changes to strengthen its patent system and harmonise certain IP laws with its trading partners.

The USMCA will come into force after it has been signed and ratified by the member states. Signature is anticipated before the end of 2018, but dates for its ratification and the expiry of its predecessor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have yet to be determined.

Data protection

Canada has long been regarded as a jurisdiction with relatively weak protection for pharmaceutical and biologic innovation. In this context, perhaps the most significant change introduced by the USMCA is an additional two years of data protection for new biologics. Data protection is a feature of the Food and Drug Regulations and provides market exclusivity for innovative drugs, independent of any protection that may exist through the patent system.

Canada currently provides data protection for all innovative drugs, including biologics, for a period of eight years from the day they are first approved. Although 10 years is an improvement, it still falls short of the 12 years of equivalent protection for biologics in the United States. Two additional years will nonetheless provide increased opportunities to offset the high cost and risk associated with the development, regulatory approval, and commercialisation of biologics.

While details are scarce regarding Canada's plans to implement its new data protection commitments, a five-year transition period to complete implementation provides ample time for policy development.

Patent term restoration (PTR)

The USMCA also requires Canada to adopt a system that reduces the risk of patent term erosion during prosecution. Once implemented, patentees will be able to access PTR by applying for additional protection when they have experienced "unreasonable delays" in issuance of a patent.

The USMCA contains two non-limiting examples of what constitutes unreasonable delay: (1) more than five years elapsing from the filing date in Canada; or (2) more than three years elapsing after a request for examination. The USMCA also avoids rewarding patentees for delays of their own making: in determining the duration of a delay, periods of time may be excluded, e.g. if they are attributable to the applicant.

In addition to PTR, the USMCA also includes separate provisions regarding patent term extension specific to the pharmaceutical industry. It appears Canada's commitments under these provisions are already satisfied by the introduction of Certificates of Supplementary Protection (CSPs) in 2017 pursuant to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union.

While CSPs are already available, Canada is not required to implement its new PTR commitments until four and a half years after the USMCA comes into force. However, PTR applies to all patent applications filed after the USMCA's date of entry into force, or the date two years after the signing of the USMCA – whichever is later.

Other IP changes in the USMCA

The USMCA also includes updates to Canada's IP commitments in other areas previously covered by the NAFTA, such as copyright and trade marks. Among them, the banner change is a 20-year extension to copyright protection, for a total of 70 years after the death of the author. Canada has two and a half years to implement this change from the date the USMCA comes into force.

cg

Christopher

A Guerreiro


Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLPSuite 3800, Royal Bank Plaza, South Tower, 200 Bay Street, PO Box 84Toronto  Ontario  M5J 2Z4CanadaTel: +1 416 216 4000www.nortonrosefulbright.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article