Following a series of urgent proceedings in late December and early January, the Quebec Superior Court issued an interesting decision1 on January 8, 2026, providing important clarifications on the scope of policies relating to intellectual property, confidential information and conflicts of interest, as well as on the duties of loyalty and confidentiality set out in employees’ employment contracts. The facts Concordia University (“Concordia”) sought a provisional injunction from the Court against a former employee and student, Mr. Oleg Khalimonov, as well as against Polaris Aerospace Inc. (“Polaris”), a company of which he was a director and shareholder. Mr. Khalimonov was employed by Concordia from September 2023 to December 2025. He had also been a student at the University since 2016 and, since 2023, he had served as Program Leader for Space Concordia, one of the University’s student associations. The group received significant public visibility with the launch of Starsailor in August 2025, described as the first rocket launch from Canadian soil in twenty-five years. These research and development activities are said to have generated significant intellectual property and attracted interest from commercial partners looking to invest in Concordia’s projects. In December 2025, Concordia was informed that Polaris was claiming in the market it had acquired Space Concordia’s intellectual property and as the entity behind the Starsailor project. On December 16, 2025, Concordia formally notified Mr. Khalimonov that his dual role with Polaris and Space Concordia raised serious concerns about potential breaches of his employment contract, the University’s Intellectual Property Policy, and its Conflict of Interest Policy. This process led to Mr. Khalimonov’s resignation as Program Leader for Space Concordia on December 18, 2025. On December 29, 2025, Polaris submitted a bid under the Launch the North initiative, a program of the Government of Canada’s Department of National Defense providing for a total of 105 million dollars in investments and grants over three years. Concordia asked the Court to order Polaris and Mr. Khalimonov to: Cease any use of proprietary or confidential information belonging to the University. Withdraw Polaris’s bid; and Remit any documentation in their possession relating to Space Concordia and/or the Starsailor project. Analysis of the criteria applicable to the provisional injunction The Court concluded that issuing the requested provisional injunction was appropriate and that Concordia had met its burden of proof. The evidence clearly showed that Mr. Khalimonov had played a central role in the University’s rocketry initiatives and that he had never formally disclosed to Concordia his simultaneous involvement with Polaris. He had undertaken to comply with strict obligations to Concordia regarding intellectual property and proprietary information, including keeping such information strictly confidential during and after his employment and acknowledging that any intellectual property developed in the course of his employment would remain Concordia’s exclusive property, with no vested rights accruing to him. Mr. Khalimonov also had to comply with university policies, including the Conflict of Interest Policy and the Intellectual Property Policy. The latter provided that the “Inventors” of “Qualifying Inventions” were deemed to have automatically assigned to Concordia the related intellectual property. The Court found that Starsailor constituted a “Qualifying Invention”, and that Mr. Khalimonov met the definition of an “Inventor” within the meaning of that policy. It also found that Polaris’s proposal used intellectual property and confidential information belonging to Concordia. In that context, the Court considers, on a prima facie basis, that Mr. Khalimonov had breached his obligations arising from his employment contract, the Intellectual Property Policy, and the Conflict of Interest Policy. The Court also concluded that refusing to grant the provisional injunction would result in the submission of competing proposals under the Launch the North initiative, creating significant uncertainty as to the ownership of the intellectual property upon which those proposals were based, and thereby causing irreparable harm to Concordia. It found that the balance of inconvenience favored Concordia and supported granting the requested provisional injunction, since the absence of a provisional injunction would likely lead to the disqualification of both Polaris’s and Concordia’s proposals due to unresolved competing claims regarding the intellectual property. Conclusions The Court granted Concordia University’s application for a provisional injunction and ordered, among other things, that Mr. Khalimonov and Polaris cease disseminating false statements suggesting that Polaris held any rights whatsoever in Concordia’s intellectual property, including in relation to Space Concordia’s rocketry projects. It also ordered Mr. Khalimonov and Polaris to cease using Concordia’s intellectual property (including for Space Concordia’s rocketry projects), as well as any confidential or proprietary information belonging to Concordia. Finally, it ordered the immediate withdrawal of Polaris’s submission filed under the Launch the North project. General Principles — Ownership of Inventions In Canada, except for inventions developed by federal public servants, ownership of inventions is derived from inventorship. Thus, the starting point for ownership of an invention lies with the inventor(s), who may subsequently transfer their rights. For Canadian federal public servants, inventions produced by a federal employee in the course of their employment are “vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada” and therefore belong to the federal government, pursuant to the provisions of the Public Servants Inventions Act. However, the Patent Act contains no comparable express provisions regarding ownership of an invention developed by an employee in the course of employment. The case law has established the general principle mentioned above: in the absence of a valid agreement relating to such rights in the context of employment ownership of an invention  vests in the employee who created it, unless the employee was “hired to invent.” The leading case in this respect is the Federal Court’s decision in Comstock2. In that case, the Court noted that the nature and context of the employer–employee relationship could be analyzed using various factors in order to determine whether an employee had indeed been “hired to invent.” Such a determination can be complex and remains uncertain, since each case depends on its particular facts. It is therefore always prudent to put in place an agreement governing ownership of inventions developed in the course of employment. Key Takeaway   Concordia University’s success in its application for a provisional injunction underscores the importance for employers of including robust intellectual property and confidentiality clauses in employment contracts. This decision is a reminder that it is not enough to rely on general principles: employers are well advised to draft comprehensive, clear, and operational provisions governing (i) the ownership and assignment of intellectual property rights, (ii) the definition and handling of confidential information, and (iii) the rules applicable during employment and after its termination. It is just as crucial that these policies and undertakings (intellectual property, confidentiality, conflicts of interest) be brought to the employee’s attention at the time of hiring, properly incorporated into or referenced in the employment contract, and easily accessible at all times. These contractual mechanisms complement the duties of loyalty and confidentiality set out in article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec, which continue to apply after the end of the employment contract—but whose scope often remains insufficient in specialized sectors where intellectual property issues are decisive. In short, this case shows that, without well-structured contractual clauses, Concordia would have had much greater difficulty asserting its rights and obtaining the withdrawal of Polaris’s competing submission under Launch the North. Concordia University v. Polaris Aerospace Inc., 2026 QCCS 30. Comstock Canada et al. v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde, (1991) 45 F.T.R. 241 (TD).

As we reported previously, changes were introduced into Canadian patent practice in October 2022 to further streamline Canadian patent examination, to pave the way for a patent term adjustment (PTA) system in Canada as per the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The PTA system is set forth in the recent amendments to the Patent Rules published on December 18, 2024, which came into force on January 1, 2025. The purpose of the PTA system is to compensate patentees for unreasonable delays in the processing and grant of applications by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO). PTA requirements To qualify for a PTA, a patent must meet the following criteria: Have a filing date (which is the PCT filing date for a Canadian national phase case) on or after December 1, 2020; Have an issue date on or after December 2, 2025; Issue after the later of 5 years from filing or 3 years from requesting examination (passing the “5/3 threshold” - see below). Furthermore, to obtain a PTA for a patent meeting the above-noted criteria, a request must be filed together with a fee (currently C$2,500) within three months of patent issuance Any PTA will be added on to the base “20-year from filing” calculation of patent term, and will also require the payment of annual maintenance fees during any additional patent term as a result of the PTA. PTA calculation - the “5/3 threshold” The starting point for the calculation of PTA is any additional days to patent issuance beyond the later of: 5 years from the Canadian national phase entry date for a PCT-based case, the Canadian filing date for a non-PCT case, or the presentation date (i.e., the date that the actual divisional filing documents are submitted) for a divisional application; or 3 years from date of requesting examination. The next step of the calculation will be to subtract from the above additional days any days in which the processing of the application was in the Applicant’s hands (any overlapping days in this regard are only counted once), such as delays in paying fees or attending to filing formalities, time to respond to CIPO notices, extensions, periods of abandonment, the period after the filing of a first request for continued examination (RCE), etc. As such, the PTA is only focused on any delays attributable to CIPO. Practical considerations One strategy to maximize the potential of obtaining a PTA is to request examination closer to the deadline, which is 4 years from the PCT filing date for a Canadian national phase case, or 4 years from the Canadian filing date for a non-PCT case. The basis of this strategy is to try to shift the balance towards period (2) noted above being applied to the PTA calculation. In doing so, any delays attributable to the Applicant before requesting examination are no longer relevant to the calculation. This strategy is less relevant for divisional applications, as the deadline for requesting examination is often only 3 months after the presentation date (when the divisional filing documents are submitted). A further strategic consideration relates to cases in which a third Examiner's report is issued or an RCE is filed. The filing of an RCE applies in the following scenarios: Following the issuance of a third Examiner’s report in cases in which examination was requested on or after October 3, 2022; Re-opening examination after allowance, for all cases. Since the issuance of a third Examiner's report (even in cases where examination was requested prior to October 3, 2022) or the filing of an RCE will have a significant negative impact on the PTA calculation, Applicants should try to streamline prosecution, to file amendments and address any issues early on during examination, to avoid the issuance of a third Examiner's report and/or the filing of an RCE. Similarly, Applicants should avoid re-opening examination after allowance, which requires the filing of an RCE (even in cases where examination was requested prior to October 3, 2022). While it is predicted1 that few patents will qualify for a PTA in view of the issues noted above and CIPO’s efforts to reduce pendency, the calculation will in most cases be relatively straightforward, allowing Applicants to assess whether requesting PTA is worthwhile before proceeding. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement published with the final version of the new Patent Rules predicts about 113 PTA applications per year over the next 10 years.

This year’s World IP Day is upon us, with the theme “IP and Youth: Innovating for a Better Future”. In honor of this theme (and at the risk of making our adult readers feel a bit less accomplished), we thought it would be appropriate to highlight some of these wonderful inventions of young, innovative minds. US 8,371,246: Device for drying pets  In 2011, 9-year-old Marissa Streng invented a device to more effectively dry her pet dog Mojo after his baths. The product is now apparently sold under the brand Puff-N-Fluff. US 7,726,080: Under-floor storage   At the age of 14, Rebecca Hyndman patented an under-floor storage system intended for use in locations where tile floors are normally used, such as in kitchens and in bathrooms. As a result of this achievement, she was given the honor of introducing President Obama at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, immediately prior to his signing the America Invents Act into law. US 6,029,874: Article carrying device for attachment to a bicycle for carrying baseball bats, gloves and other sports equipment or objects   Biking to baseball practice can be quite the challenge when one has to carry both a bat and a glove simultaneously. From this problem sprang the “Glove and Battie Caddie”, invented by Austin Meggitt at the age of eleven. The Glove and Battie Caddie holds a baseball, bat, and glove on the front of a bike. US 7,374,228: Toy vehicle adapted for medical use   At the age of 8, young Spencer Whale invented a toy vehicle adapted for transporting a child and their required medical equipment. According to the patent, the toy allows children who are hooked up to medical equipment to move more freely around a hospital, with the intention of making their stay more enjoyable. US 5,231,733: Aid for grasping round knobs   One of the youngest people to obtain a patent was Sydney Dittman of Houston, Texas. In 1992, when Sydney was only 2 years old, she invented a tool out of parts of her toys in order to open kitchen drawers that her parents had told her to stay out of. Upon noticing that the device would be great for handicapped people to use, her father started the patenting process, and the resulting patent issued when Sydney was only 4 years old. Please join us to celebrate youth innovation on this World IP Day!

Excess claim fees on the horizon As reported earlier, the Canadian government published proposed amendments to the Patent Rules on July 3, 2021. A significant component of the proposal is the introduction of excess claim fees on the order of $100 CAD for each claim beyond 20 claims, which will be payable when requesting examination, and will be re-assessed upon allowance to determine if further claim fees are due when paying the final fee based on changes in the number of claims during examination. Consider acting now In anticipation of the likely introduction of such a regime in early 2022 (which may be announced with only 30 days’ notice), Applicants may wish to begin assessment of their Canadian patent matters and consider requesting examination by the end of 2021 to avoid the payment of such excess claim fees and retain the right to present a larger number of claims for examination. Based on the transitional provisions in the proposed Rules, taking such action now shall avoid payment of such excess claim fees when requesting examination and when paying the final fee upon allowance. We thus recommend that Applicants consider taking such action this year to retain the benefits of the current regime, particularly for cases with a large number of claims as well as those which were already being considered for requesting examination in the short term. Stay Tuned! While the exact details and timing of the upcoming changes remain unknown, the earlier proposal suggests that they will likely be soon and with little advance notice. Please stay tuned for upcoming news in due course, and do not hesitate to contact a member of our patent team for guidance through the ultimate transition.