Data and information sources

In our deliberations, we relied heavily on the findings of the various in-person consultations described in the previous section. We also referenced past provincial and federal reports as well as more recent studies that provide an assessment of the current IP landscape in Canada. 

The Strategic Mandate Agreements (SMA) with Ontario universities and colleges were discussed during the consultations. While the SMA does not fall under this Expert Panel’s mandate, we were nevertheless mindful of ensuring that our recommendations for innovation metrics are aligned with the direction of these agreements.

We also considered relevant initiatives of the federal government such as the National IP Strategy including the Patent Collective Pilot Project (which some of the members of the Expert Panel are directly involved in.) This pilot project is designed to provide a multitude of IP services but is limited to clean tech companies. While we are of the view that innovation strategies and IP commercialization must involve and be supported by both provincial and federal levels of government and that duplication and overlap should be reduced, our mandate is focused on Ontario and our recommendations are reflective of the needs of this province.

We appreciated the candour of the in-person consultations which produced discussion on a broad range of important issues of concern. For example, we heard about constraints at the level of federal funding such as the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada programs. While the scope of our mandate does not permit us to specifically address all the issues and insights that arose during our consultations, we hope that the provincial representatives who were present throughout have noted these concerns and will direct them to the appropriate individuals or agencies.

Issue identification

Drawing from our research and the in-person consultations it was clear that the most significant recurring themes revolved around questions of capacity-building in IP education and access to specialized IP legal services as well as the structure and governance of the various public sector entities within the ecosystem.Our recommendations are therefore organized under these headings.

While we recognize the importance of all forms of IP, there is no question that patents remain the most significant—not only in terms of their economic value but also in terms of their complexity and costs.

Opinions about the importance of patents varied among those consulted with some expressing skepticism that patents may be overvalued as economic drivers in the knowledge-based economy. We are not indifferent to these views. However, there is no question that patents remain important strategic assets in today’s global marketplace and their commercialization yields significant economic returns to their owners. While incomplete data currently exists to show the IP generation of Ontario, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) provides a useful overview of nation-wide performance in IP generation and suggests that Canada’s patenting performance is woefully inadequate. (See Appendix A.)

A comprehensive perspective

Incentives and accountabilities must be matched by a commitment on the part of all stakeholders within the ecosystem to work together and ensure that the commercialization of the most valuable intangible assets results in Ontarians receiving direct economic value for their investment in the IP. Radical solutions are not needed but it is incumbent on the government and participating stakeholders to determine the best ways to add or embed greater attention to IP within the province’s existing entrepreneurial and innovation environment.

We are also mindful of the diversity within the entire ecosystem itself. Universities come in all forms and sizes, as do colleges, with different disciplinary specializations and expertise including those with particular demographic expertise like entities serving Franco-Ontarians or Indigenous peoples. They also come with different levels of access to resources and expertise. This diversity can be leveraged for strength. Collectively, the ecosystem needs to do better at achieving IP commercialization goals but always in step with individual disciplinary and contextual strengths.

Some stakeholders stood out as requiring further study or review. The colleges offer interesting pathways to commercialization that are currently underdeveloped and should be the subject of more focussed attention. We encourage the province to consider the opportunities for colleges to more directly support IP education for industry, their students and their faculty and to determine how to resolve some of the structural obstacles that have limited their ability to enhance their IP commercialization skills and services.

The medical research institutions involved in pharmaceutical research are also a specific group with challenges that we cannot fully address in our report. Much of their work is basic research and requires years of development. Finding the correct partners and collaborators is crucial to allow hospitals and medical researchers to negotiate more beneficial IP arrangements for publicly-funded research. In this respect, assistance with the costs of clinical trials and with strategies for de-risking IP commercialization efforts were issues of concern.