2017 AIPPI World Congress – Sydney
October 13 - 17

0
Days
0
Hours
0
Minutes
0
Seconds
Loading Events

AIPPI MEMBERS

REGISTER NOW!

Registration Fees
(10% GST INCLUDED)
By June 27, 2017 From June 28, 2017 to August 29, 2017 From August 30, 2017 and Onsite
Participant AUD 2,850 AUD 3,990 AUD 4,990
Young participants, less than 36 years old / Student Lawyers 50% of the above indicated fees
Full time academic professional 50% of the above indicated fees
Accompanying Person AUD 890 AUD 1,250 AUD 1,560
Closing Dinner AUD 250

NON-MEMBERS

JOIN & REGISTER

Additional payment of CHF 200 AIPPI Subscription Fee!

You may be able to join AIPPI and register for the Congress in one easy procedure.

The National Groups in Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, UK and the USA have allowed IP professionals residing in those countries to join the respective National Group of AIPPI when they register for the Congress, for an additional payment of CHF 200see more

REGISTER AS NON-MEMBER

AIPPI welcomes non-members to the Congress in Sydney!

Registration Fees
(10% GST INCLUDED)
By June 27, 2017 From June 28, 2017 to August 29, 2017 From August 30, 2017 and Onsite
Participant AUD 3,560 AUD 4,990 AUD 6,240
Accompanying Person AUD 1,110 AUD 1,560 AUD 1,950
Closing Dinner AUD 250
Payment information

Payments can be made by bank transfer or credit card (VISA or MasterCard) through the online registration system.

Payments by bank transfer will be possible until September 14, 2017. After this date, only payments by credit card will be accepted (VISA or MasterCard).

For the Join & Register process, only payments by credit card will be accepted (VISA or MasterCard).

Any cancellation must be sent to AIPPI General Secretariat in writing registration@aippi.org

For cancellations received before July 27, 2017, the fee will be refunded less AUD 110 (AUD 100 plus 10% GST) for administrative costs. After this date, no refund will be possible.

Request for modifications of a registration are free of charge until July 27, 2017. After that date a handling fee of AUD 110 (AUD 100 plus 10% GST) per modification will be charged.

In case of a visa refusal, a refund will only be possible if the refusal is communicated to the General Secretariat two weeks prior to the meeting and the visa has been requested three months prior to the meeting. Please provide a copy of the letter refusing the visa.

All refunds will be processed after the Congress.

Congress participant’s fee includes:

  • Attendance at Panel Sessions
  • Attendance at ExCo and Plenary Sessions
  • Opening Ceremony & Welcoming Reception on Saturday, October 14, 2017
  • Coffee breaks and networking lunches
  • Participant bag, including documents
  • Final Programme & List of Participants

Accompanying person’s fee includes:

  • Half day City-tour
  • Opening Ceremony & Welcoming Reception on Saturday, October 14, 2017

Fee reduction only for AIPPI members registrations

If you belong to one of the three groups below, you will need to provide to AIPPI General Secretariat during the registration process following credentials:

Young participants, less than 36 years old:

A copy of your ID or passport

Student Lawyers:

A copy of your student card for the current year

Full time academic professional:

Confirmation from your institution you work for that you are a full time academic professional

Regular fees will be charged if the General Secretariat does not receive the credentials within one week of registration.

Programme at a Glance   Print Programme at a Glance

(subject to change)

Panel Sessions
Pharma Day Sessions
Study Committee Meetings
Plenary Sessions
Administrative Sessions
By Invitation-Only Events
Young AIPPI Forum
Briefings
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 09:00-12:30
PS I: The best kept (trade) secret: a real life scenario
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 11:00-12:30
PS IV: The business of IP – IP and competition
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 14:00-15:30
PS II: On a different note – copyright and music
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 14:00-15:30
PS V: The business of IP - venturing with IP
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 16:00-17:30
PS III: Don't take it for granted - developments in post-grant proceedings
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 16:00-17:30
PS VI: The business of IP – Big Data, big issues
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 09:00-10:30
PS VII: On the ball – IP and sport
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 11:00-12:30
PS VIII: Partial Designs – full protection?
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 14:00-15:30
PS IX: Funny, bad taste or out of order? Morality and public order in trademarks
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 16:00-17:30
PS X: The middleman - intermediary liability
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - 09:00-10:30
PS XI: How much for your FRAND?
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - 11:00-12:30
PS XII: What`s the (technical) problem?
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 09:00-10:30
Pharma 1: Sufficiently plausible?
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 11:00-12:30
Pharma 2: Injunctions: innovator vs. innovator
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 14:00-15:30
Pharma 3: Medical devices and patents – a shot in the arm for pharma?
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 16:00-17:30
Pharma 4: Digital health – your health on (the) line
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 08:30-09:30
Study Committee Briefing - Leadership only
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00
Bad faith trademarks
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00
Protection of graphical user interfaces
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00
Quantification of monetary relief
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00
Patentability of computer implemented inventions
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 15:30-17:00
2018 Study Questions
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 15:30-17:00
Study on Patents: Inventor Remuneration
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 09:00-10:30
Proposed Resolution on Geographical Indications and Appellations of Origin
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 11:00-12:30
Standing Committee on Pharma & Biotechnology - The Subcommittee for Biotechnology and Plant Variety Rights: Gene Patenting
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 14:00-17:30
Plenary Session for proposed Resolution IV
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 09:00-12:30
Plenary Session for proposed Resolution V
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 14:00-17:30
Plenary Session for proposed Resolution VI
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - 09:00-12:15
Plenary Session for proposed Resolution VII
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 17:00-18:00
Executive Committee I
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 14:00-16:00
Secretaries & Treasurers Meeting
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - 14:00-17:30
Executive Committee Meeting II
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 12:30-14:00
Lunch Bureau with Guests
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 12:30-14:00
Info Session for First Time Attendees
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 14:00-15:30
NGO Coordination Meeting
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 14:00-17:00
Young AIPPI Forum
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 17:00-18:00
In-House Meeting
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 07:30-08:30
RGT, PC Breakfast
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 16:30-17:30
Independent Members Meeting
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 07:30-08:30
RGT, PC, SCs Leadership Breakfast
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 13:00-14:00
Registration
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 14:00-14:15
Welcome and opening remarks by Meeting Chair
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 14:15-15:45
Workshops: Cultural differences and networking styles
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 15:45-16:00
Closing Remarks
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 16:00-17:00
Networking in practice, reception on-site
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 09:00-10:30
Briefing:Development and IP
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 12:30-14:00
Lunch 1 - Briefing: Development of the IP system in China
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 12:30-14:00
Lunch 2 - Briefing: Recent developments at the EPO
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - 12:30-14:00
Lunch 3 - Briefing: Update on Brexit / the UPC
2016 was a blockbuster year for trade secrets legislation. The US signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the EU passed the Trade Secrets Directive. Law makers are increasingly recognizing the value of trade secrets to their economies and the need to provide legislative frameworks to protect these valuable assets...see more.
This first session in 'The business of IP' series will explore these issues and the effect they have on international harmonization efforts....see more.
This panel session will offer an overview of the current hot topics in music copyright, including recent case law and legislative developments...see more.
This second session in 'The business of IP' series will explore the use of IP as collateral for financing, which can include IP-backed loans, royalty securitization and IP sale and license-back arrangements. The advantages and disadvantages will be canvased both from the perspective of companies of different sizes, as well as the institutions and vehicles that invest in them...see more.
This panel session will explore global strategies using various national and/or regional tools, from the perspective of both the patentee and the opponent...see more.
This third session in 'The business of IP' series will explore the relevance and application of current IP laws to Big Data, whether they meet industry needs, and whether there are any alternative models...see more.
The role of IP in any successful sporting endeavour is critical. This panel session will explore the key issues and challenges for IP protection in sport...see more.
It is envisioned that this panel session will lead to a further study question and related resolution to assist AIPPI in contributing towards further global harmonization of design protection...see more.
This panel session will canvass decisions refusing or invalidating trademarks on these grounds across jurisdictions, illustrating differing cultural or religious values and exploring when trademarks should be refused or invalidated on such grounds...see more.
This panel session will discuss intermediary liability in the digital world in key jurisdictions, including the availability of site blocking injunctions and address the practical effects and inherent limitations of such injunctions in the digital era...see more.
This session will consider the UK case, as well as cases from other jurisdictions, and provide an overview of royalty rate determination issues for SEPs, related issues for standard setting organizations (SSOs), approaches adopted by other entities, such as patent pools and non-practicing entities (NPEs), and also touch on the use of arbitration to resolve royalty rate disputes...see more.
In this session, the speakers will compare the requirements relating to the technical problem in patent applications and patents across jurisdictions, and seek to identify a preferred approach...see more.
The time between the invention of an active ingredient (or the second medical use thereof) and the approval of the final drug is significant, often a decade or more. To safeguard rights, patent applications must generally be filed when enough is known to justify further resources, for example, to conduct animal and human studies... see more.
This panel will debate the relief that is appropriate in cases when innovators compete in the same field and infringement is found...see more.
This session will examine the developments in medical device technology and look at the role of the current and future IP and regulatory regimes in relation to their protection, and for related healthcare products...see more.
This session will focus on the both the technology and the related IP issues and provide examples of where IP has been successfully utilized in this new and exciting field. One aspect which will be considered is how IP has enabled startups and SMEs to gain a foothold in the healthcare sector, which has previously been dominated by larger, more-established companies...see more.
Leadership of the 2017 Study Questions gather to introduce the following Hot Topics:
  • Bad faith trademarks
  • Patentability of computer implemented inventions
  • Quantification of monetary relief
  • Protection of graphical user interface
All Study Committee members are invited to attend the introduction of the 2018 Study Questions.
Study Question: Quantification of monetary relief
Study Question: Patentability of computer implemented inventions
Study Question: Protection of graphical user interface
Study Question: Bad faith trademarks
All ExCo representatives gather for the first ExCo meeting of the 2017 World Congress
This meeting will be followed by a Q&A Session from 15:00-16:00.
All ExCo representatives join to close the AIPPI 2017 World Congress
If it is your first AIPPI Congress and you would like to better understand the educational, social and networking activities of the Congress, be sure to attend the informal lunch and information session on Saturday, October 14, 2017 from 12:30 to 14:00.
NEW at the Congress in Sydney is the Young AIPPI Forum, an educational and networking event designed for young members (and non-members) attending the Congress to develop their networking skills and contacts within a multicultural professional environment.
NEW at the Congress in Sydney is the Young AIPPI Forum, an educational and networking event designed for young members (and non-members) attending the Congress to develop their networking skills and contacts within a multicultural professional environment.
NEW at the Congress in Sydney is the Young AIPPI Forum, an educational and networking event designed for young members (and non-members) attending the Congress to develop their networking skills and contacts within a multicultural professional environment. Join us at the welcoming where the Meeting Chair will share his opening remarks.
NEW at the Congress in Sydney is the Young AIPPI Forum, an educational and networking event designed for young members (and non-members) attending the Congress to develop their networking skills and contacts within a multicultural professional environment. Join all Young Members for a welcoming workshop.
NEW at the Congress in Sydney is the Young AIPPI Forum, an educational and networking event designed for young members (and non-members) attending the Congress to develop their networking skills and contacts within a multicultural professional environment.
NEW at the Congress in Sydney is the Young AIPPI Forum, an educational and networking event designed for young members (and non-members) attending the Congress to develop their networking skills and contacts within a multicultural professional environment.
The purpose of this session is to provide an introduction and briefing on this topic, with a focus on the perspective of developing countries. It will be moderated by Reinhard Oertli, chair of the SCDIP, will feature experienced practitioners from developing countries as keynote speakers, and will allow delegates to present their views and concerns... see more.
This Lunch Session will provide a briefing on recent Chinese IP system developments, and a practical guide to navigating the systems of IP protection in China including via criminal, civil and administrative measures...see more.
  • (Ticketed Lunch)
This Lunch welcomes EPO President Benoît Battistelli to provide lunch session attendees with the latest updates on the EPO...see more.
  • (Ticketed Lunches)
This session will provide a briefing on the likely implications for the protection and enforcement of IP in the UK generally, including the issues of free movement/exhaustion and the jurisdictional arrangements if the Brussels Regulation no longer applies to the UK... see more.
  • (Ticketed Lunches)

Celebrating its 120th Anniversary this year, AIPPI is going “down under” to hold its annual AIPPI World Congress in one of the world’s most beautiful and vibrant cities – Sydney, Australia.

The members of the Bureau of AIPPI and of the Australian Group of AIPPI are excited about welcoming you to a city and country renowned for visually stunning attractions, such as the iconic Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge. This is a unique setting for you to take part in AIPPI’s comprehensive Educational Programme, featuring all areas of IP law and all disciplines of practice from prosecution to litigation, while at the same time taking advantage of extensive networking opportunities with attendees from around the world, including prominent government, IP office and industry officials.

The Congress will take place at the International Convention Centre Sydney (ICC), which opened in late 2016 and provides state of the art facilities and comforts. The ICC is located in Darling Harbour, in the heart of Sydney, allowing for many of the events and receptions to take place on or around the spectacular natural harbour. Sydney and Australia are safe, affordable and welcoming. Australians are famous for being exceptionally friendly and Sydney, with a diverse and multicultural population of almost 5 million, will make all AIPPI Congress attendees feel at home.

AIPPI has been “Shaping IP for 120 Years”. This is your year to take part in that activity and to do it in what promises to be an unforgettable AIPPI World Congress.

We are pleased to name Emirates as our partnered airline, where all attendees receive special fares! Read more…

Find Your Destination

Tours
Accommodation
Social events

Accommodation

Rooms have been secured at a selection of hotels in Sydney with flexible terms and conditions exclusively for attendees of the 2017 AIPPI World Congress. Please notice that the rates below include Breakfast and Wifi.

Accommodation bookings are now available. For any enquiries or interests in basic tips and practical information regarding your trip to Sydney, please contact our Professional Conference Organizer.

Please note Novotel Rockford Darling Harbour is currently undergoing a refurbishment. This will be conducted during business hours and is expected to cause minimal (if any) disruption to guests during their stay.

488 George Street, Sydney, Australia 2000
18 minutes walking distance
STANDARD ROOM:
Sgl. AUD$374 | Dbl. AUD$399
DELUXE ROOM:
Sgl. AUD$384 | Dbl. AUD$409
161 Sussex Street Sydney, Australia, 2000
10 minutes walking distance
STANDARD CITY VIEW ROOM:
Sgl. AUD$345 | Dbl. AUD$370
STANDARD HARBOUR VIEW ROOM:
Sgl. AUD$405 | Dbl. AUD$430
HARBOUR VIEW CLUB ROOM:
Sgl. AUD$490 | Dbl. AUD$530
100 Murray St, Pyrmont NSW 2009
6 minutes walking distance
FULLY BOOKED
17 Little Pier Street, Darling Harbour NSW 2000
8 minutes walking distance
Standard King Room:
Sgl. AUD$384 | Dbl. AUD$409
150 Day Street, Sydney NSW 2000
14 minutes walking distance
Guest Room:
Sgl. AUD$340 | Dbl. AUD$365
Club Room:
Sgl. AUD$430 | Dbl. AUD$430
243 Pyrmont St, Darling Harbour NSW 2009
11 minutes walking distance
Studio Room:
AUD$274
1 Bedroom Apt. AUD$293
2 Bedroom Apt. AUD$459
12 Darling Drive, 2000 SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
1 minute
We have been advised that the new Sofitel Sydney Darling Harbour, adjacent to the ICC Sydney, will open on October 6 which is 4 weeks ahead of schedule.

To book your accommodation or for more information about the hotel, visit their website here.
70 Murray St, Pyrmont NSW 2009
7 minutes walking distance
Pyrmont View Room:
Sgl. AUD$323 | Dbl. AUD$338
Harbour View Room:
Sgl. AUD$356 | Dbl. AUD$371

Tours

Discover Sydney’s unique destinations with Tours specially designed by our Professional Conference Organizers. If your are interested in any particular excursion or tour, please email our Professional Conference Organizer.
Bookings are now available!

Exhibitors & Media Partners

Exhibition Floor Plan
 

Select a company logo for company description to appear.

ABPI

ABPI, the Brazilian Intellectual Property Association, is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the study and development of intellectual property, notably the right of industrial property, copyright, competition law, technology transfer and other related areas. ABPI is the Brazilian Group of AIPPI and, among other activities, promotes and organizes conferences, congresses and seminars, edits publications on the subject of intellectual property, and permanently maintains 14 Study Commissions and other Working Groups aimed at improving legislation, doctrine and jurisprudence of this branch of law.

WEBSITE

ACUMASS

Acumass is a leading Intellectual Property service provider, operating on a global level with offices based across Europe, Asia and the US. We take pride in providing comprehensive, secure and cost effective renewal services.

WEBSITE

AFRICAN REGIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (ARIPO)

ARIPO is a regional office which issue IP rights on behalf of its member states. Membership stands at 19 states. ARIPO accords simplified procedures for the processing of applications, making it cost effective and attractive.

WEBSITE

AIPPI CANCUN 2018

2018 AIPPI World Congress - Cancun

WEBSITE

AIPPI LONDON 2019

WEBSITE

AMBERCITE PTY LTD.

Ambercite provides patent discovery tools, based on deep Citation Analysis and AI algorithms. Ambercite, scores and prioritises patent families, providing a unique view often unseen using keyword and semantics. No Search is Complete Without it.

WEBSITE

ASIA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL

Asia Business Law Journal is a new bi-monthly magazine for in-house counsel with the responsibility for all or part of Asia. It clarifies the regulatory environments in all key Asian jurisdictions and arms its readers with the tools to seize opportunity, manage risk, implement effective legal solutions and identify the most capable external advisers. Asia Business Law Journal is published by Vantage Asia.(Media Partner)

WEBSITE

ASIA IP

Asia IP is the market leading resource for companies looking to protect their intellectual assets. With in-depth analysis and commentary, it gives in-house counsel and lawyers the knowledge to devise an effective IP protection strategy. (Media Partner)

WEBSITE

CHINA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL

China Business Law Journal (CBLJ) is a fully bilingual monthly magazine for China-focused in-house counsel and law firms. It provides in-depth analysis of the legal and regulatory challenges facing domestic and international businesses in China and indispensable intelligence on the country’s legal market. China Business Law Journal is published by Vantage Asia. (Media Partner)

WEBSITE

DARTS-IP

Darts-ip is the only global IP case law database. IP professionals use Darts-ip to make more confident decisions and get the upper hand at all stages of their work.

WEBSITE

DENNEMEYER GROUP

Dennemeyer Group is the world’s most comprehensive full-service provider for the protection and management of Intellectual Property rights: from legal services (Dennemeyer & Associates), software and management services (Dennemeyer IP Solutions) to IP consulting (Dennemeyer Consulting).

WEBSITE

EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE

With the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court poised in the starting blocks, the EPO will present essential information on the new system at this years AIPPI World Congress. The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court are the new building blocks which will complete and strengthen the existing centralised European patent granting system. Users will have (at their disposal) an attractive, cost-effective option for patent protection and dispute settlement across Europe.

WEBSITE

INDIA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL

India Business Law Journal (IBLJ) is a market-leading monthly magazine that provides in-depth analysis of the legal and regulatory challenges facing domestic and international businesses in India and unrivalled intelligence on the country’s law firms and legal market. Its readers are in-house counsel and private practice lawyers around the world. India Business Law Journal is published by Vantage Asia.

WEBSITE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MAGAZINE (IPM)

IPM will help you meet the demands of your clients and business through reliable, independent and exclusive articles and expert analysis from experienced practitioners. We offer coverage and analysis on all areas of IP law. (Media Partner)

WEBSITE

IPPRO PATENTS

IPPro Patents is the primary source of global patent news and analysis, featuring commentary on trends in patent prosecution, enforcement, and more. (Media Partner)

WEBSITE

IPPRO THE INTERNET

IPPro The Internet is the primary source of global internet intellectual property news and analysis, featuring commentary on trends in online copyright and trademark protection, domain names, and more.

WEBSITE

MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Managing Intellectual Property magazine gives you all of the latest news, insight and commentary on the top stories affecting the world of IP law. Visit www.managingip.com to take a free trial today. (Media Partner)

WEBSITE

MARCASUR

MARCASUR is the leading Intellectual Property media specialized in Latin America. This year celebrating 20 years of continuous growth, MARCASUR products stand out for its exclusive content and attractive design. With contents in Spanish, English and Mandarin, among MARCASUR products you can find Marcasur Magazine (printed), Marcasur Digital Magazine, Marcasur International, Marcasur free iPad application, Marcasur.com, Marcasur Week, and Marcasur Clips. (Media Partner)

WEBSITE

PRACTICE INSIGHT

Practice Insight’s software products change the business of IP: Filing Analytics – identify new business opportunities from the latest reciprocity intelligence Citation Eagle – discover and monitor customized opportunities from global patent citations WiseTime – increase billable hours

WEBSITE

S. S. RANA & CO.

S.S. Rana & Co. is an ISO 27001:2013 certified law firm in India, representing many Fortune 500 Companies in the area of Trademarks. Patents, Copyright, Designs, Domain Names, IP Licensing, Enforcement, Litigation and Corporate Laws.

WEBSITE

SPRUSON & FERGUSON

Spruson & Ferguson is a leading provider of intellectual property services across the Asia-Pacific region, with 350 staff working from our offices in Bangkok, Beijing, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Melbourne, Shanghai, Singapore and Sydney.

WEBSITE

STATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PEOPLES’ REPUBLIC OF CHINA (SIPO)

The State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO) is the government institution in charge of organizing and coordinating IPR protection nationwide, and the authority for receiving and examining patent applications.

WEBSITE

THE PATENT LAWYER

The Patent Lawyer and its sister publications, The Trademark Lawyer and The Copyright Lawyer provided unrivaled specific IP information to the world’s largest IP owners and law firms. (Media Partner)

WEBSITE

WANHUIDA PEKSUNG

Wanhuida Peksung is a leading IP service powerhouse offering a full range of IP services, from procuring all forms of IPRs to dispute resolution, protecting and defending client’s interests and help advancing China’s legal fronts.

WEBSITE

WOLTERS KLUWER

Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S. (lr.us.wolterskluwer.com) delivers expert content and solutions in the areas of law, corporate compliance, health compliance, reimbursement, and legal education. (Media Partner)

WEBSITE

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (WIPO)

WIPO is the UN agency dedicated to intellectual property. Learn more about the international filing systems for patents, trademarks and industrial designs. Let us help you get the most out of your innovations and creations.

WEBSITE

WORLD IP REVIEW

World IP Review and its sister publications Life Sciences IP Review, the WIPR Annual and WIPR Leaders provide news and guidance on the challenges facing businesses and legal practitioners active in intellectual property. (Media Partner)

WEBSITE

Sponsors

Sponsorship Brochure
 

Select a company logo for company description to appear.

INTEL

Gold Sponsor

WEBSITE

BUGNION S.P.A.

One of the foremost European partners in the market of industrial property. A tailor-made approach to transform ideas into key drivers of corporate's asset, besides helping clients achieve a competitive edge in the global market.

WEBSITE

CCPIT PATENT AND TRADEMARK LAW OFFICE

Founded in 1957. Today employing 600 professionals, CCPIT is a global network. CCPIT focuses on full-service intellectual property and prosecution and enforcement.

WEBSITE

CHOFN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Founded in 2002, Chofn is a Chinese IP firm with a staff of 1500 in 19 offices in China, including 400+ patent attorneys & engineers, 300+ trademark attorneys, and 40+ lawyers.

WEBSITE

FB RICE

FB Rice is a private partnership firm of patent and trade mark attorneys with a strong local presence in Australia. We believe innovation is fundamental to economic prosperity and global growth.

WEBSITE

GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN

G&B has represented clients worldwide in all aspects of intellectual property law for almost 40 years, in the areas of monetization/licensing and due diligence/acquisitions, patent and trademark prosecution, USPTO post-grant procedures, and litigation.

WEBSITE

LUIZ LEONARDOS & ADVOGADOS

Luiz Leonardos (LLIP), with almost 100 years devoted to IP, counts with the expertise of over 80 professionals, a highly developed IP system administration and a long tradition of personal services caring for clients' professional needs.

WEBSITE

NSW GOVERNMENT

New South Wales is Australia`s first state and remains to be a major global and Asia-Pacific cultural hub.

WEBSITE

Programme Materials

Pharma Day Sessions

Pharma 1: Sufficiently plausible?

Monday, October 16, 2017 - 09:00-10:30

The time between the invention of an active ingredient (or the second medical use thereof) and the approval of the final drug is significant, often a decade or more. To safeguard rights, patent applications must generally be filed when enough is known to justify further resources, for example, to conduct animal and human studies.

Various questions arise in this respect. How can the invention be expressed in a manner sufficient to one of ordinary skill in the art? What experimental or other data are required? Is the invention at issue (e.g. compound or second medical use claim) relevant? How are questions about utility/ industrial applicability and obviousness/inventive step resolved? Can post filing data be used to overcome these issues? Variations of these issues arise in many jurisdictions, creating challenges for applicants – in China, over the use of post filing data in overcoming inventive step and sufficiency rejections; in Canada, over the “patent promise” doctrine; and in Europe increasingly over the question of the “plausibility” of the invention as described in the patent specification. Speakers from Asia, Europe and North America will address these issues in the hope of formulating a global standard.

Panellists:

Pharma Day Sessions

Pharma 2: Injunctions: innovator vs. innovator

Monday, October 16, 2017 - 11:00-12:30

The business model of the biopharmaceutical industry depends on the ability to sell innovative products exclusively for period of time in order to recoup the substantial research investment. Generally, regulatory approval for a generic version is based on the innovator’s safety and efficacy data. Thus, the cost of bringing a generic product to market is considerably lower.

The advent of complex bioproducts has changed this equation. The US case Amgen v Sanofi involves two innovator companies in a patent infringement dispute over a new class of cholesterol lowering agents.The court at first instance enjoined Sanofi from selling its competing anti-cholesterol agent after Amgen’s patents were found valid and infringed.

Both innovator products are the result of billions of dollars of research. This finding shocked the biopharmaceutical industry. Medical professionals filed amicus briefs in Sanofi's appeal, indicating that trials of the Sanofi drug are on the verge of finding the superior product. The Court of Appeals stayed the pending appeal, noting several factors, including Sanofi’s likelihood of succeeding on the merits, and the possibility of irreparable harm. This panel will debate the relief that is appropriate in cases when innovators compete in the same field and infringement is found.

Panellists:

Pharma Day Sessions

Pharma 3: Medical devices and patents – a shot in the arm for pharma?

Monday, October 16, 2017 - 14:00-15:30

Medical devices play an increasing role in the provision of healthcare. Recent developments in technology, in particular in the areas of advanced materials, miniaturization, robotics and computing have enabled faster and more effective treatment for a range of conditions. Alongside this, healthcare companies have been looking to enhance their IP protection for medical devices, including where there is overlap with pharmaceutical products. The regulatory environment surrounding pharmaceutical products can be tied to particular treatment plans which can be controlled with dedicated types of medical device, for example, drug delivery apparatus such as injection devices, stents and inhalers.

In Europe, the regulatory regime around medical devices is changing in 2017 with the adoption of new EU Medical Device Regulations and a new EU In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device Regulations. Alongside this, the ability to extend patent term and obtain supplementary patent protection for regulated medicinal products in certain circumstances is leading to a proliferation of extension mechanisms for pharmaceuticals and related products.

This session will examine the developments in medical device technology and look at the role of the current and future IP and regulatory regimes in relation to their protection, and for related healthcare products.

Panellists:

Pharma Day Sessions

Pharma 4: Digital health – your health on (the) line

Monday, October 16, 2017 - 16:00-17:30

The growth in recent years in computerized healthcare has been remarkable. Significant developments in diagnostics, robotics and sensor technology have led to improved patient care involving many types of new product, including wearable and implantable devices, connected devices, remote monitoring and surgery, and many others. With the development of so-called ‘connected health’, diagnosis can take place remotely along with the formulation of improved treatment plans utilizing data from large populations.

The numerous IP and related issues include data privacy and patent protection for diagnostic methods and computer software (cf the US Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.). Another issue is the convergence of different sectors and their approaches to IP protection, in particular reconciling an exclusivity-based approach traditionally adopted in the healthcare sector with the licensing-based approach employed in hi-tech industries.

This session will focus on the both the technology and the related IP issues and provide examples of where IP has been successfully utilized in this new and exciting field. One aspect which will be considered is how IP has enabled startups and SMEs to gain a foothold in the healthcare sector, which has previously been dominated by larger, more-established companies.

Panellists:

Panel Sessions

PS I: The best kept (trade) secret: a real life scenario

Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 09:00-12:30

2016 was a blockbuster year for trade secrets legislation. The US signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the EU passed the Trade Secrets Directive. Law makers are increasingly recognizing the value of trade secrets to their economies and the need to provide legislative frameworks to protect these valuable assets. However, despite these positive steps, trade secret theft knows no jurisdictional boundaries. Trade secrets and those who misappropriate them frequently cross international borders. In the absence of international harmonization or coordination, companies and their lawyers have to navigate a patchwork of substantive and procedural civil and criminal laws, all against a ticking clock. This exciting, practical and interactive session will include a panel of global experts who will advise a New York-based company which has just been the victim of trade secret theft by its Head of R&D. The panel, with audience participation, will advise the company of the procedural and substantive tools available to it to try to recover its trade secrets, as the employee traverses the globe. By the end of the session, the employee will have passed through a number of key jurisdictions before ending up in Sydney.

Panellists:

Panel Sessions

PS IV: The business of IP – IP and competition

Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 11:00-12:30

Australia's Productivity Commission issued a report on its inquiry into Australia's Intellectual Property Arrangements in September 2016. The report arises from a recommendation in an earlier competition law review which suggested that Australia's IP regime needed to be viewed through 'a competition prism'. The final report recommends sweeping changes to all aspects of Australia's IP system. The intersection between IP and competition law has been a key area of focus in many jurisdictions in recent years. It seems to be acknowledged that IP laws offer opportunities to create new and valuable knowledge by incentivising innovative endeavour and investment. However, competition regulators remain concerned that IP rights are inherently monopoly rights, and that rights holders may engage in anti-competitive behavior. As a counterpoint, another recent focus has been the contribution of IP to economic performance, particularly in light of the EPO/EUIPO report 'Intellectual Property Rights Intensive Industries and Economic Performance in the European Union' (October 2016). However, this perspective too may differ depending upon whether a particular jurisdiction is regarded as a 'importer' or 'exporter' of IP. This first session in 'The business of IP' series will explore these issues and the effect they have on international harmonization efforts.

Panellists:

Panel Sessions

PS V: The business of IP - venturing with IP

Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 14:00-15:30

Many companies depend on their intellectual property assets to drive value creation, achieve market differentiation and generate M&A activity. The role of IP as collateral has a long history – Thomas Edison used his patent on the incandescent electric light bulb to secure financing to start his company, The General Electric Company. Increasingly, large corporations, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups are leveraging their IP assets to seek access to capital. Start-ups and SMEs may need to commence or enhance operations, or increase their R&D spend. The financing requirements of established companies may be driven by the need to expand or make acquisitions. With the increasing the contribution of IP assets to overall company value, IP financing has become more mainstream. However, with crowd funding now presenting an alternative source of capital, companies and venture capitalists alike need to understand and evaluate all options. This second session in 'The business of IP' series will explore the use of IP as collateral for financing, which can include IP-backed loans, royalty securitization and IP sale and license-back arrangements. The advantages and disadvantages will be canvased both from the perspective of companies of different sizes, as well as the institutions and vehicles that invest in them.

Panellists:

Panel Sessions

PS III: Don't take it for granted - developments in post-grant proceedings

Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 16:00-17:30

Patentees cannot take for granted the life and scope of a granted patent. After grant, patent validity may be challenged or its scope amended through various proceedings including opposition, post-grant review, revocation actions and limitations. This creates ongoing uncertainty for patentees. Most patent systems allow for at least some types of post grant proceedings. In Europe, there is the possibility of opposition proceedings before the EPO, patent revocation proceedings before national courts and limitation proceedings both before the EPO and national offices. Some European countries allow cumulative opposition and revocation proceedings, while others don’t; some also allow national limitation actions while EPO oppositions are ongoing. China allows multiple revocation actions involving the same parties and patents. The jurisdiction of the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board includes inter partes and post-grant reviews. Ex parte reexamination remains available at the USPTO. Other countries, like Japan, offer fewer opportunities, although Japan (along with the US) have recently revised their respective post-grant processes. France has recently developed case law limiting the availability of revocation actions by applying a limitation period and qualified standing. This panel session will explore global strategies using various national and/or regional tools, from the perspective of both the patentee and the opponent.

Panellists:

Panel Sessions

PS VI: The business of IP – Big Data, big issues

Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 16:00-17:30

Developments in information technology have enabled businesses to produce, collect, store, analyse, use and share vast collections of data which are estimated to be worth trillions of dollars. Essentially large databases, the manner in which data is collected (including through collaboration and user-generated content), and the ways in which it can be used to create value, sets Big Data apart from traditional databases. The increasing prevalence and value of Big Data raises questions in many areas of law, from data protection and consumer law to competition, telecommunications and fundamental-rights law. This panel will focus on the challenge of Big Data to IP law. Central to IP protection is the concept of ownership of property (albeit, intangible). Big Data is generally dynamic, massive, unstructured and real-time. The emphasis is on access and use. Traditional IP laws provide limited protection to those who invest in Big Data, and little predictability for those who use it. Rights such as trade secret protection and sui generis database protection struggle to fill the gap. This third session in 'The business of IP' series will explore the relevance and application of current IP laws to Big Data, whether they meet industry needs, and whether there are any alternative models.

Panellists:

Panel Sessions

PS VII: On the ball – IP and sport

Monday, October 16, 2017 - 09:00-10:30

The world of sport is a globalized, IP-intensive place. One of the key drivers to the commercial success of any sportsenterprise or endeavour is the associated IP which can cover the full spectrum of available rights. In the drive to go faster, longer and higher, patented technology plays a significant role in athletes achieving results that push the bounds of human possibilities. Examples include high tech swim wear fabric and advanced materials used in bicycles and sports shoes. The branding of a sporting event, team, product or athlete is a primary revenue generator. However, with IP rights, and the related benefits of sponsorship and merchandising, come the pitfalls of ambush marketing and counterfeits. One of the most significant revenue streams for major sports events or leagues are broadcast rights. For example, television rights to the American NFL broadcasts are reported to be in the billions of dollars annually. Overall, the role of IP in any successful sporting endeavour is critical. This panel session will explore the key issues and challenges for IP protection in sport.

Panel Sessions

PS VIII: Partial Designs – full protection?

Monday, October 16, 2017 - 11:00-12:30

An “industrial design” or “design patent” typically protects the outward appearance or ornamentation of an object or article of manufacture. At the AIPPI Milan 2017 Congress, one of the adopted resolutions concerned the definition and the requirements for protection of such designs, with a focus on the role of functionality. Building on the Milan discussion, this panel session will focus on whether a part or portion of a product can be the subject of independent design protection and if so the requirements for and scope of any such design protection. As part of this discussion, the panel session will consider whether such a partial design must be visible to the human eye when used, and whether exemptions from protection such as “must fit” (where the design for the portion of the object is dictated by the need to fit with other parts or products, which may or may not be in the context of "reparation") apply. It is envisioned that this panel session will lead to a further study question and related resolution to assist AIPPI in contributing towards further global harmonization of design protection.

Panellists:

Panel Sessions

PS IX: Funny, bad taste or out of order? Morality and public order in trademarks

Monday, October 16, 2017 - 14:00-15:30

According to article 6quinquies(B)(iii) of the Paris Convention, trademarks may be denied registration or invalidated if they are contrary to morality or public order and, in particular, of such a nature as to deceive the public. National trademark laws contain similar provisions. In Switzerland, an applicant wanted to protect "Madonna" as trademark for a variety of goods. While the application was accepted in other jurisdictions, Switzerland's highest court held that such a trademark would violate the religious feelings at least of the catholic part of the Swiss population and must therefore be denied protection. In the US, four musicians of Asian origin are trying to protect their band name "The Slants" as trademark. The USPTO refused the application on the ground that this phrase is a generally disparaging slang term for Asians. The final word in this case is now with the Supreme Court. This panel session will canvass decisions refusing or invalidating trademarks on these grounds across jurisdictions, illustrating differing cultural or religious values and exploring when trademarks should be refused or invalidated on such grounds.

Panellists:

Panel Sessions

PS X: The middleman - intermediary liability

Monday, October 16, 2017 - 16:00-17:30

Advanced technologies and increased access to the Internet and communication networks around the world bring many opportunities both to exploit and infringe intellectual property rights online. According to Google data, the number of requests to remove links to copyrighted materials for the Google web search engine alone has jumped from a few hundred thousand web addresses each week in 2011 to more than 21 million a week in 2016. Courts in many countries have now granted injunctive relief in the form of site-blocking injunctions requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) - “the middleman” - to block local access to sites which have infringing content. The EU and a number of countries have adopted various laws in an effort to combat digital infringement. Scenarios where a "middleman" may be enjoined and/or liable are numerous and varied, and subject to a web of different laws and regulations in many different jurisdictions. This panel session will discuss intermediary liability in the digital world in key jurisdictions, including the availability of site blocking injunctions and address the practical effects and inherent limitations of such injunctions in the digital era.

Panellists:

Panel Sessions

PS XI: How much for your FRAND?

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - 09:00-10:30

In recent years there have been a number of high profile cases in a number of jurisdictions concerning FRAND-committed standard essential patents (SEPs).   One of the main topics considered in these cases has been the availability of injunctive relief, but a crucial issue which has not yet been addressed in many jurisdictions is a determination of an appropriate FRAND royalty.  This is paradoxical since a disagreement about royalties is often the cause and origin of the dispute.   Reasonable royalties have been determined in some US cases (e.g. Microsoft v Motorola). In Europe, the first significant determination of FRAND was carried out in Unwired Planet v Huawei and others, a judgment of the UK Patents Court handed down in April 2017. Following previous findings of infringement and validity, the UK Patents Court addressed the issue of the determination of a FRAND royalty rate, and the nature of the FRAND commitment, in a comprehensive 166-page judgment.   This session will consider the UK case, as well as cases from other jurisdictions, and provide an overview of royalty rate determination issues for SEPs, related issues for standard setting organizations (SSOs), approaches adopted by other entities, such as patent pools and non-practicing entities (NPEs), and also touch on the use of arbitration to resolve royalty rate disputes.

Panellists:

Panel Sessions

PS XII: What`s the (technical) problem?

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - 11:00-12:30

Consideration is often given to the technical problem by patent offices and courts when assessing patentability, specifically, the existence of an inventive step. The relevance attributed to the technical problem is an issue in itself. The EPO problem-solution approach renders the identification of the technical problem central to any reasoning. Other systems have a different approach. It is also relevant to some patent offices whether the technical problem is identified in the specification (expressly or implicitly from any statement of advantages or objectives). Failure to comply with any formal requirement in this regard may have consequences for validity. Reformulation of the technical problem is another issue – offices and courts may take different approaches as to whether this is permissible and, if so, when and how it is done. Reformulation may be acceptable when new prior art is identified. What is the position when the technical problem is not identified as solved, or a technical effect is not sufficiently demonstrated? Can the applicant request any reformulation? And what is the remaining relevance of the initial formulation? The speakers will compare the requirements relating to the technical problem in patent applications and patents across jurisdictions, and seek to identify a preferred approach.

Panellists:

Briefings

Briefing:Development and IP

Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 09:00-10:30

Long-term economic prosperity in developing countries necessarily involves the transition from a manufacturing to a technology and knowledge-based economy. Developing countries depend on the ability both to import and to develop technologically advanced solutions in many fields, including robotics, healthcare, ICT and sustainability solutions. Economic development increasingly depends on the ability to design, produce and export goods of cultural and creative value, incorporating advanced and specially adapted technologies, differentiated by designs and brands, or goods in electronic format. Developing countries are increasingly both recipients and originators of ideas, designs and marks. Contrary to a view that protection of intellectual property generally hinders economic development, IP protection as part of a smart IP strategy plays a key role for developing countries in reaching higher growth levels. The Standing Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (SCDIP) monitors and reports on this important area on behalf of AIPPI. The purpose of this session is to provide an introduction and briefing on this topic, with a focus on the perspective of developing countries. It will be moderated by Reinhard Oertli, chair of the SCDIP, will feature experienced practitioners from developing countries as keynote speakers, and will allow delegates to present their views and concerns.

Panellists:

Briefings

Lunch 1 - Briefing: Development of the IP system in China

Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 12:30-14:00

Since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, China has continued to strengthen its legal framework and amend its IP laws and regulations to comply with TRIPS. Today, China has the second largest economy in the world, one of the top five patent offices in the world and hosts the world's largest trademark office. It is therefore not surprising that the 2016 Global Patent & IP Trends indicator cited the continued increase in the importance of IP in China as a key trend. While China has embraced IP to drive an innovation-based economy, the development of its IP system has drawn increasing attention from the world. In December 2016, China released the 13th Five-year Plan on National IP Protection and Utilization. Amongst other things, the plan calls for an improved IP legal system, enhanced IP protection, better IP quality, comprehensive IP utilisation and strengthened international cooperation. This Lunch Session will provide a briefing on recent Chinese IP system developments, and a practical guide to navigating the systems of IP protection in China including via criminal, civil and administrative measures.

Panellists:

Briefings

Lunch 2 - Briefing: Recent developments at the EPO

Monday, October 16, 2017 - 12:30-14:00

AIPPI is very pleased to once again welcome EPO President Benoît Battistelli at its Congress to provide lunch session attendees with the latest updates on the EPO. The EPO, with 38 member states and reaching a population of 650 million, is certainly a highly influential actor on the global patent stage. Recognized for its high-quality and business-friendly services, the EPO continues to achieve rising productivity. In 2017, the reform of the Boards of appeal is being implemented and the EPO is preparing for the possible arrival of the unitary patent. Celebrating ten years of IP5 co-operation, the EPO will host the IP5 Heads meetings in Valetta, Malta in June 2017.

Panellists:

Briefings

Lunch 3 - Briefing: Update on Brexit / the UPC

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - 12:30-14:00

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was triggered in March 2017, giving the UK two years to negotiate its withdrawal from the EU. Given the extent of harmonization of IP law across Europe, the consequences of a UK departure are complex.  To facilitate the transition of the UK out of the EU legal system, a Great Repeal Bill will preserve and convert EU laws into domestic UK law as at the point of exit subject to adaptation in some cases. This session will provide a briefing on the likely implications for the protection and enforcement of IP in the UK generally, including the issues of free movement/exhaustion and the jurisdictional arrangements if the Brussels Regulation (or part of it) no longer applies to the UK. The implementation of the Unified Patent Court was at an advanced stage when the Brexit referendum took place. While the UK's announced intention to ratify the UPC agreement suggests that the UPC system might go ahead, it is unclear if and how the UK can participate in the context of the current UPC framework: part international treaty, part EU Regulation, and subject to the oversight of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), especially as no references from UK courts to the CJEU are possible once the UK has left the EU. The UPC may be operational by December 2017. This session will also provide a timely briefing on progress and the possibilities for the UK’s ongoing role in the UPC, in light of the structural uncertainties due to Brexit.

Panellists:

Study Committee Meetings

Bad faith trademarks

Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00

Bad faith most commonly arises in the context that a trademark is used in one or more jurisdictions, but is not registered in other jurisdictions, and someone other than the trademark owner applies for an identical or confusingly similar trademark in a jurisdiction where the trademark is not registered. This might be done to prevent the trademark owner from entering the market, with the intention of selling the trademark application to the trademark owner when the owner attempts to enter that market, or simply wishing to profit from the trademark owner's reputation. Such applications may be rejected as “bad faith” applications. The refiling of a very similar or identical trademark by a trademark owner, or the filing of a socalled "defensive trademark", can arguably also amount to bad faith (in the sense that such marks are not used, or not genuinely used, but nonetheless obstruct the use and/or registration of a third party trademark). "Bad faith" may also arise in other situations, e.g. if an applicant has no intention to use the mark applied for, or not for all goods/services at issue; or if an application is contrary to contractual obligations. Because of the differences in the treatment of “bad faith” trademarks between jurisdictions and the variability of the criteria for a finding of bad faith, there is a lack of predictability regarding what constitutes bad faith. This means both trademark owners and applicants for registration may need to take different approaches in different jurisdictions. This Study Question seeks to establish the types of conduct that constitute bad faith in trademark law and how bad faith may be proved, both from the perspective of a prior user and the perspective of a third party objecting to e.g. a defensive mark or refiling. In this respect, a question to be answered will be whether a definition of bad faith as such is desirable, or whether it is preferable simply to identify circumstances that can be relevant to establishing bad faith. Reporter:
Co-Chair: Bill MAYO (CA)
Secretary: Thomas WIDMER (CH)

STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00
 
PLENARY SESSION VII
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - 09:00-12:15

Study Committee Meetings

Protection of graphical user interfaces

Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00

Graphical user interfaces ("GUIs") are of increasing importance in relation to computing devices, particularly mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers. GUIs can comprise many elements including graphical icons, screens, pages, layouts and interactive components. GUIs can also include methods of converting physical user interaction (such as touch, speech or eye movement) into a control signal for the device. The arrangement of these elements within the GUI, and the interaction between individual GUI elements, can be very important to the accessibility of the underlying services and data of the device. Accordingly, a significant amount of innovation is increasingly taking place in relation to GUIs. Various IP rights may protect different aspects of GUIs. For example, the most suitable mode of protection for the technical contributions of GUIs such as improvement of usability and accessibility may be patent protection. For the aesthetic elements of the appearance of GUIs, design protection is likely to be most relevant. GUIs may also attract copyright protection as an original expression. Further, GUIs may have the function of identifying the source of products, in which case, trademark protection is also relevant. There could potentially be other forms of protection, such as trade dress and sui generis rights. On the other hand, there may be limitations depending on the type of IP rights. patent protection of GUIs inevitably involves the issue of whether a computer program constitutes patentable subject matter in the first place. Regarding design protection, there are issues such as whether a GUI that temporarily appears on a screen of an electronic device can be protected as a design. With respect to copyright, there is an issue of whether GUIs can be characterised as protectable expressions rather than simply as unprotectable ideas. Finally, it might be the case that only GUIs that have acquired secondary meaning through use could be protectable by trademarks. Jurisdictions take differing approaches as to whether IP protection is available for GUIs. For example, European countries, South Korea and the US generally permit design registrations or design patents for screen layouts and icons. China used to explicitly exclude GUIs from design protection, but recently amended its rules to allow for design protection of GUIs. This Study Question is topical by reason of the economic significance of the markets for devices incorporating GUIs, the global / cross border nature of the relevant industries, the pace of technological development in relation to GUIs, and the variation in approaches between jurisdictions. It studies the various protections afforded to GUIs, and aims to propose a degree of harmonization as to how GUIs should be protected by, and by which, IP rights. Reporter: Chair: Kozo YABE (JP)
STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00
 
PLENARY SESSION VI
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 14:00-17:30

Study Committee Meetings

Quantification of monetary relief

Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00

In litigation concerning infringement of IP rights, monetary relief is commonly requested by the IP rights holder. It is generally accepted that this relief should at a minimum be adequate to compensate for the loss suffered by the rights holder and to deter further infringement. When determining damages, it may be difficult to obtain economic evidence regarding infringement, and to estimate the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded within the factual matrix of the dispute before the court. For example, where permanent price erosion has occurred, an injunction restraining future infringement together with compensation for past losses might not fully compensate the right holder. Predictable and logical rules for quantification are desirable as this allows the parties to have a reasonably clear idea of the likely quantum of damage, which may in turn encourage early settlement. TRIPs provides, very generally, that the right holder should obtain damages adequate to compensate the injury suffered. However, rules for quantification of monetary relief vary considerably between jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, quantification is based on general concepts of non-contractual liability (torts), or general common law principles relevant to damages. In other jurisdictions, there are specific provisions relating to damages for IP infringement. For example, European Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights provides rules indicating various aspects of damages and loss to be taken into account when assessing monetary relief. Further, the amount of any damages award may vary significantly from one country to another, irrespective of the size of the market. Given the cost of litigation and the need for business and legal certainty, it is timely for AIPPI to compare the various systems of quantification of monetary relief. This includes the consequences of the Enforcement Directive, particularly as to whether it has resulted in harmonised practices. The aim is to search for further international harmonisation and to formalise any general rules for the quantification of damages that can be applied in different factual situations, thus promoting legal certainty. Reporter: Chair: Peter SCHECHTER (US)
STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00
 
PLENARY SESSION IV
Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 14:00-17:30

Study Committee Meetings

Patentability of computer implemented inventions

Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00

Patents for computer implemented inventions have been a contentious topic since the dawn of the computing age. In 2014, in the case of Alice Corp v CLS Bank International, the US Supreme Court issued a keenly awaited judgment, reversing the trend of relative leniency towards the granting of patents for computer software and business methods. Core to the Alice doctrine is the requirement that a patentable (computer-related) invention must comprise "significantly more" than an abstract idea. European practice in this field has been reasonably clear and consistent since the early 2000s, albeit relatively strict in terms of what can be patented. Although differences exist between the EPO and national practices, and between individual European countries, the approach summarised in the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 03/08 (Programs for computers) of 12 May 2010 is broadly followed. Core to current EPO doctrine is the requirement that a patentable (computer-related) invention must make a non-obvious contribution to the state of the art in the field of "technology", whereas contributions to non-technical fields (no matter how inventive) are not sufficient to fulfil the inventive step requirement (modified inventive step test). Practice in countries such as Japan and Australia has traditionally been less strict. Patents for business methods are often allowed, although debate about the patentability of software and business methods has recently taken a harder line in Australia. US patent practice has been significantly affected by the USPTO examination guidelines which were revised after Alice, with previously-patentable subject matter now routinely being rejected by examiners and on appeal. In the meantime, the number of patent applications relating to computer-implemented subject matter continues to grow. There will also likely be further developments in Europe based on the jurisprudence of the anticipated Unified Patent Court. This topic is of huge significance to some of the world’s largest industries. Article 27 of TRIPs stipulates that patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology. However, differences in the rules and practice between individual countries and regions often mean that computer implemented subject matter is viewed differently across different jurisdictions, making it difficult to develop effective global patenting strategies. It is therefore highly desirable for AIPPI to seek to develop a Resolution on this topic. Reporter: Chair: Richard BROWN (AU)
Co-Chair: Kay KONISHI (JP)

STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING
Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 09:00-15:00
 
PLENARY SESSION V
Monday, October 16, 2017 - 09:00-12:30

Plenary Sessions

Study on Patents: Inventor Remuneration

Saturday, October 14, 2017 - 15:30-17:00

This study concerns the issue of remuneration for employee inventors for inventions made in the course of their employment. Specifically, this study will consider whether and to what degree employee inventors should be compensated in addition to their normal wages for such inventions. In some countries, employer rights to employee inventions are regulated by national laws, whereby an employer can acquire the right to an invention made by an employee in a number of ways. In other countries, there is no such regulation. Some countries have various requirements relating to the amount of remuneration an employee must receive for an invention made by the employee and filed in a patent application by the employer. Some countries have no such requirements. This creates a complex compliance obligation for international organizations. The issue becomes even more complex in the context of multinational inventions, i.e. where joint inventors of an invention reside in different countries. This is an increasingly common situation due to the prevalence of international corporations having geographically distributed R&D groups, multinational joint venture projects, international corporate/university collaborations, and other cross-border research projects. This study is not being presented for a resolution at the Sydney Congress. However, it will be the subject of a plenary session to debate a possible form of draft position that may then be used to invite comments from GOs and other stakeholders. After consideration of all input, the Standing Committee intends to propose a resolution on inventor remuneration for adoption at the Cancun Congress in 2018. Chair:

Plenary Sessions

Proposed Resolution on Geographical Indications and Appellations of Origin

Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 09:00-10:30

The rationale for the protection of geographical indications (GIs) and appellations of origin (AOs) is to protect signs identifying the geographical origin of goods whose characteristics or reputation are linked to such origin. There is considerable divergence worldwide with regard to the protection of GIs and AOs. Some countries have enacted specific legislation in relation to GIs / AOs supporting broad protection (particularly in relation to their local typical products). Other countries, who do not tend to favour strong protection of GIs / AOs, regulate them (if at all) within the framework of trademark legislation. The differences and disagreements which have emerged within the international framework focus on several key points surrounding the regulation of GIs and AOs. These include how relevant rights are acquired, the prerequisites for any protection, the scope of any protection, maintaining any protection in the face of supervening circumstances, and relationships with other IP rights. The Standing Committee on Geographical Indications has, through a questionnaire, collected information from AIPPI's National and Regional Groups on developments in their respective jurisdictions in relation to GIs and AOs. With this as basis, AIPPI can further develop its position on issues relating to GIs and AOs, leading to a resolution aimed at harmonisation of the laws relating to GIs and AOs. This will assist in the advocacy of AIPPI's position on such issues to national and regional governments and in international forums. Chair:

Plenary Sessions

Standing Committee on Pharma & Biotechnology - The Subcommittee for Biotechnology and Plant Variety Rights: Gene Patenting

Sunday, October 15, 2017 - 11:00-12:30

Over the last few decades, isolated genes and genetic material have been regarded as constituting patentable subject matter in many jurisdictions. However, in recent years, various court decisions, most prominently the Myriad cases in the US and Australia, have called into question the patentability of such material. Additionally, the European Court of Justice in Decision C428/08 has ruled that member state law is precluded from offering “absolute protection” to patented DNA as such. The Biotechnology Sub committee has recently published a Position Paper which concludes that the advancement of research in and with genetic material should be fostered in view of its contribution to the discovery of urgently needed therapies and medicaments. To this end, the patentability of genetic material should be promoted and harmonized. By contrast, exclusion from patentability deters efforts in genetic research, preventing beneficial developments being made available for the benefit of the public. The Position Paper offers the view that genetic materials should not be regarded as patent ineligible subject matter by reason of TRIPs Article 27(2) and (3), and nor should inventions in relation to genetic material be considered contrary to ordre public or morality. The standard tests of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability should apply. On the basis of this Position Paper, the Sub committee has proposed a resolution for adoption at the Congress in Sydney, which will be discussed in this Plenary Session. Chair: