Intellectual property rights are only meaningful if they can be enforced. But litigation is expensive and complex. Where does this leave rights owners dealing with small-scale acts of infringement? In a new study for the Queen’s Law Journal, we explored whether small claims courts could be an answer to “negative-value suits” in the IP space (i.e. when the cost of litigation is greater than the value of the judgment). Despite the relative novelty of IP small claims, our findings confirm these forums have wide jurisdiction over infringement matters, and are often well-positioned to resolve IP law questions, notwithstanding that such cases are rare. For this year’s Access to Justice week, we highlight one often-overlooked strategy for cost-effective enforcement.

It is no secret that a gap exists when it comes to protecting certain forms of Indigenous intellectual property (IP). While conventional IP tools are excellent in ensuring contemporary songwriters, inventors and brand owners keep control of what they make, these tools are less helpful when it comes to Indigenous traditional knowledge and cultural expression.

The promise of a new “free speech” era for Twitter has made some relieved, others peeved. With the news that Elon Musk intends to make the platform a “digital town hall,” both fans and critics anxiously await what form the new debate landscape will take. However the rules of engagement are drafted, the boundaries of what speech is allowed will have some legal limits. Hate speech and defamation are easy examples – but one often overlooked and underappreciated boundary is intellectual property.