VENUES

Name: 2019 AIPPI World Congress – London
Start: 2019-09-15T07:00:00+00:00
End: 2019-09-19T06:59:59+00:00
Location: QEII Centre

QEII FLOOR MAP

AIPPI is going to one of today’s world cultural capitals – LONDON.

With over 2000 years of history, London has progressed to be a global leader in arts, commerce, entertainment, tourism and development. In recent years London has pushed to become one of the most innovative and business driven nations in the world, which is why we find it a suitable location to debate the latest topics of IP.

Uniquely situated in the shadow of Big Ben, Westminster Abbey and the London Eye, The Queen Elizabeth II Convention Centre (QEII) is the ideal place to experience London and all it has to offer!

The QEII Centre is less than five minute’s walking distance from Big Ben and the Thames, directly opposite Westminster Abbey and a two-minute walk from a royal park. In addition to offering world class facilities and comforts, it is the largest dedicated congress and exhibition space in central London.

Networking lunches will be held at Central Hall Westminster, just across the road from the QEII Centre. The Central Hall Westminster will also be the location for Opening Ceremony and Welcome Reception.

Westminster_aerial view_FINAL

QUEEN ELIZABETH II CENTRE

Broad Sanctuary, Westminster, London SW1P 3EE, UK

Website

CENTRAL HALL WESTMINSTER

Storey’s Gate, Westminster, London SW1H 9NH, UK

Website

Print Programme at a
Glance

Go to Google maps

Exhibitors & Media Partners

Exhibitor Manual

Exhibition Floor Plan

Select a company logo for company description to appear.

2020 AIPPI WORLD CONGRESS – HANGZHOU

WEBSITE

2021 AIPPI WORLD CONGRESS – SAN FRANCISCO

WEBSITE

ABPI - BRAZILIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION

(Media Partner) ABPI is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the study of intellectual property, notably the right of industrial property, copyright, competition law, technology transfer and other related branches. ABPI promotes conferences, congresses and seminars, edits publications on the subject of intellectual Property.

WEBSITE

ACTIO

ACTIO – global patent, trademark and design filings. Validation of EP patents and national/regional filing of PCT and TM applications. Competitive and exact pricing. International network of recognized IP firms. Select local associates. Reduce administration.

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 IP management and renewal services.

WEBSITE

AFRICAN REGIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (ARIPO)

ARIPO is a regional organization based in Harare, Zimbabwe, with the mandate to grand or register IP rights on behalf of its nineteen member states using simplified, cost effective and attractive procedures for processing applications.

WEBSITE

AIPEX

AIPEX, your one single point of entry for multi jurisdiction IP service in Europe. Our 11 partners are located across the UK and Europe and we are fully prepared for the challenges posed by Brexit.

WEBSITE

ASIA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL

(Media Partner) Asia Business Law Journal is a 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 Publishing Limited.

WEBSITE

ASIA IP

Asia IP is a vital source of intelligence for IP-owning companies active in Asia. Online and in print, in-depth analysis and news meet the information needs of in-house counsel, business leaders and law firm partners.

WEBSITE

BEIJING THINKIN CONSULTING CO., LTD

(Media Partner) BEIJING ThinkIn Consulting Co., Ltd is specialized in providing IP-related media service with a great number of senior media experts. We are uniquely positioned with our local strength plus a global angle with diverse media experience.

WEBSITE

BILLTRADER

Billtrader was set up by IP attorneys to help IP firms to get paid faster, save bank fees and cut accounting admin costs when paying or being paid by IP firms overseas.

WEBSITE

CHINA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL (CBLJ)

(Media Partner) 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 Publishing Limited.

WEBSITE

CHINA IP MAGAZINE

(Media Partner) China IP Magazine is an magazine comprehensively reporting developments of Chinese IP Industry and serving IP professionals. Since its establishment in 2004, China IP Magazine has been devoting itself to disseminating value of IP globally.

WEBSITE

CPA GLOBAL

CPA Global is the world’s leading Intellectual Property Management and Technology company. We serve over 10,000 customers and connect millions of global IP users every day.

WEBSITE

FELLOWS AND ASSOCIATES

Fellows and Associates are an international recruitment firm focused on finding intellectual property jobs predominantly for patent attorneys, trade mark attorneys, IP lawyers and other professionals working in the IP sector.

WEBSITE

HONG KONG TRADE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

HKTDC promotes Hong Kong’s two-way trade with the world in goods and services. We promote Hong Kong’s unrivalled advantages as an international business centre, which include the rule of law and strong IP protection.

WEBSITE

IAM

(Media Partner) IAM is the only intelligence service to provide global coverage of the IP value creation environment. Its unrivalled coverage and in-depth analysis of key sectors gives executives critical business intelligence to maximise their IP value.

WEBSITE

INDIA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL (IBLJ)

(Media Partner) 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 Publishing Limited.

WEBSITE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MAGAZINE

(Media Partner) Intellectual Property Magazine (IPM) offers reliable coverage and analysis on a broad spectrum of IP law, from in-house and private practice lawyers, to IP managers and anyone responsible for utilising IP to grow their business.

WEBSITE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PUBLISHING HOUSE CO.,LTD.

Intellectual Property Publishing House Co.,Ltd. established in 1980 by CNIPA. IPPH is the largest IP information service provider in China. The solutions covering full life-span of IP has emerge as a viable business model of IPPH.

WEBSITE

INTER-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (ASIPI)

ASIPI is a non-profit-making private association and its main objective is to promote the development and harmonization of IP laws and procedures in the Americas. Today, ASIPI has over 1,000 members from different countries around the world.

WEBSITE

INVENTA INTERNATIONAL

Inventa International is an IP consulting firm, specializing in Intellectual Property protection and internationalization, with a particular focus within the African continent, including the regional conventions – ARIPO and OAPI.

WEBSITE

IP STATION

We manage your IP administration in a cost-effective way – entire processes or specific tasks where you need extra expertise. We are experienced IP assistants and make your administration simple and secure.

WEBSITE

IP-COSTER NETWORK

Free and open for IP practitioners, IP-COSTER is an online platform designed to facilitate the IP protection process worldwide. IP-COSTER provides budget forecast, quotations, foreign filings and workflow solutions for patents, trademarks and designs.

WEBSITE

IPPRO

(Media Partner) IPPro is a leading intellectual property magazine supported by several supplements boasting worldwide coverage of IP as it happens. We cover topics ranging from trademarks and copyright to patents, domain names, life sciences and more.

WEBSITE

LEADERS LEAGUE

(Media Partner) Leaders League is a media and rating agency for top executives at the international level with a focus on IP. Our IP guides contain extensive research and coverage for over 40 jurisdictions.

WEBSITE

MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - IP STARS

(Media Partner) Managing IP is the foremost source of news and analysis on all intellectual property developments globally. IPSTARS is the leading specialist guide for IP firms and practitioners, providing research and rankings for over 130 jurisdictions.

WEBSITE

MARCASUR

(Media Partner) MARCASUR is the leading IP media in Latin America with 20 years of continuous growth. MARCASUR has various products in Spanish, English and Mandarin, in printed and digital format.

WEBSITE

MINESOFT

Minesoft’s web-based solutions are designed to exploit the commercial value of IP and scientific information. Minesoft serves many Fortune 500/FTSE 100 companies around the world, as well as specialist IP, patent attorney and search firms.

WEBSITE

PATENT SEEKERS

Patent Seekers is a global IP research firm with dedicated in house search teams in both the UK and North America. With over 16,000 searches our customer focus, high quality and competitive pricing are unmatched.

WEBSITE

PATENT-PILOT

Patent-Pilot is a business intelligence tool for patent law firms. With our software, users can investigate patent law firms, their clients, partners and competitors with easy to use search functions and stream-lined dashboards.

WEBSITE

PATENTLY LTD

Patently transforms the way you review patents. Spend less time on finding, checking and updating. Focus on conducting patent reviews and delivering critical analysis with our intuitive data platform

WEBSITE

PATRIX IP HELPWARE

Patrix IP management system Patricia® is all-inclusive, platform agnostic, and has helped professionals for 20 years. Our philosophy is to safeguard investments by providing continuity to clients in product development, technology, and upgrade path.

WEBSITE

PAVIS GMBH

PAVIS is a leading European Intellectual Property service provider, specializing in worldwide patent and trademark renewal. An experienced team of IP professionals, attorneys and network partners safeguards our clients’ IP rights and ensures timely payments worldwide. PAVIS excels in expertise, transparency and client service. Well-established procedures and interfaces provided for data exchange with several IP Management Systems make for smooth and effortless sending of online payment instructions. More than 1,400 law firms, patent agencies and corporate IP departments benefit from our 39 years of experience.

WEBSITE

PREMIER CERCLE

(Media Partner) Premier Cercle® researches, produces and organises global Intellectual Property events covering Patents, Trademarks, Designs and Copyrights. These conferences offer key stakeholders the opportunity to share their views on current business and policy developments.

WEBSITE

RWS

RWS offers the highest-quality patent translations, a seamless patent filing experience and a wide range of cutting-edge intellectual property search services.

WEBSITE

SUNYU GROUP

Sunyu Group is recognized as one of the leading intellectual property support service providers in China. We specializes in translating patent with more than a decade of experience.

WEBSITE

SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – IP-SEARCH

ip-search provides high-quality patent searches to industry as well as IP law firms. ip-search is a service of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, the Swiss national office for patents, trademarks and designs.

WEBSITE

THE GLOBAL IP MATRIX

(Media Partner) The Global IP Matrix Magazine is one of the latest Intellectual property law magazines on the market. We have designed an impressive and eye-catching publication with the 'off the shelf' appeal that still holds vital up to date literature and features from world-renowned IP professionals that will keep you interested.

WEBSITE

THE PATENT LAWYER

(Media Partner) The Patent Lawyer is a bimonthly magazine and core publication of CTC Legal Media. It connects the most renowned and established IP firms and professionals with the current developments in world economics, trends and inventions.

WEBSITE

WISETIME, BY PRACTICE INSIGHT

WiseTime is the first enterprise-level autonomous timekeeping solution for legal. Connecting to your practice management system, WiseTime eliminates the manual administration of timekeeping. No more manual time entries or start-stop timers.

WEBSITE

WOLTERS KLUWER

Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S, International Group provides legal practitioners, corporate counsel and business executives with comprehensive legal information and tools that cross boundaries and jurisdictions to navigate the increasingly global aspect of law.

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

(Media Partner) 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.

WEBSITE

MATERIALS

Study Questions

Copyright in artificially generated works

Sunday, September 15 , 2019 - 09:00-15:30

Details

Of all the technological advances that attract lawyers’ attention, artificial intelligence (AI) should prove to be genuinely transformational. As more AI systems can assist or replace humans in the performance of creative endeavours, they will inevitably encounter the same IP questions as humans do. Can something made by or using an AI system be a copyrighted work? Are the classic principles of copyright applicable to artificially generated works, or is something new and different required? How is any term of copyright protection measured if the author is a machine? There is already a debate about whether the advent of AI challenges the fundamental concepts of copyright law, or whether current laws will suffice. This mirrors philosophical debates about the justifications for copyright protection. If is to promote the progress of science and arts, it may be possible to make room for AI. However, if copyright is conceived as a fundamental, moral right afforded to human creators, it is harder to accept protection for algorithms. We are still at an early stage in the evolution of AI, but that it already plays a far larger role in everyday life than most people appreciate, and that copyright law will need to adapt to keep up. For now, most jurisdictions appear to consider human intellectual authorship a prerequisite for copyright protection. However, that leaves open the question of whether a human who programmes or operates of an AI application might qualify for authorship. As AI systems becomes more able and consequential, national copyright approaches may diverge further. Thus, this is an opportune moment for AIPPI to study the intersection of AI and copyright.

Responsible Reporter:

Guillaume HENRY

Chair: Jan NORDEMANN (DE)
Vice Chair: Edouard TREPPOZ (FR)
Vice Chair: Dale NELSON (US)
Secretary: Christian THOMAE (MX)
__________________________________________________________________ PLENARY SESSION (1)
Monday, September 16, 2019 - 14:00-17:30

Chair: Richard BROWN (AU)

Study Questions

Consumer survey evidence

Sunday, September 15 , 2019 - 09:00-15:30

Details

In many proceedings, particularly in the context of trademarks, the ultimate determination of any dispute may rest upon key findings pertaining to, for example, the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark, and any confusion, parasitism or dilution. Issues often arise as to the manner in which such elements can be proven. One evidentiary tool that may be used is consumer surveys. However, both the admissibility of and weight accorded to consumer survey evidence in trademark proceedings are continuing topics of controversy, making it desirable to have a harmonized approach. The potential importance of survey evidence can be substantial, whether in opposition proceedings, revocation proceedings or infringement proceedings before the IP Office and/or a court. Such evidence may be helpful in respect of a variety of issues including whether a sign is perceived as being used as a trademark, the degree of descriptiveness or distinctiveness, evidence of reputation, evidence of deception or confusion, the extent of any free-riding, dilution or other negative impact on goodwill, and the extent of any harm or damage to the rights holder. Issues considered as part of this Study Question include the admissibility of consumer survey evidence per se, the types of proceedings in which such evidence may be used, what it can (help) prove and requirements for such surveys (e.g. as to the way of conducting the survey, the number and selection of respondents, the appropriate form and order of survey questions and the use or nature of controls).

Responsible Reporter:

Anne Marie VERSCHUUR

Chair: Graciela PEREZ DE INZAURRAGA (AR)
Vice Chair: Geraldine ARBANT (FR)
Vice Chair: Thijs VAN AERDE (NL)
Secretary: Maria GONZALEZ (ES)
__________________________________________________________________ PLENARY SESSION (2)
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - 9:00-12:30

Chair: Maria SCUNGIO (US)

Study Questions

IP damages for acts other than sales

Sunday, September 15 , 2019 - 09:00-15:30

Details

If damages are asserted in relation to sales of infringing products, the quantification of damages would generally be based on the lost profits/sales of the rightholder, which can be estimated from the sales diverted from the rightholder to the infringer. However, where there has been no act of sale by the infringer, there may be no diversion of sales. The quantification of damages for acts other than sales, e.g. keeping / warehousing (stockpiling) infringing product, importing infringing product, offer for sale separate from sale itself (advertisements, tenders etc), will need to be based on data other than the price of sales. This issue was not addressed in detail in the study leading to the Resolution on “Quantification of monetary relief” (Sydney, 2017). Infringement arising from acts other than sales is commonly alleged in IP litigation – possibly so that continued non-sales infringements can be injuncted, but should an injunction be the only remedy for such infringements? ‘Pure’ non-sales infringements that have no associated act of sale in the same timeframe can involve a complex damages analysis. For example: (a) how is a reasonable royalty to be calculated? One solution might be to analyse market practices relating to upfront licensing fees unconnected to anticipated sales; (b) whether extensive offers for sale can ‘smother’ the patentee’s own marketing efforts and thereby cause a reduction in the patentee’s own sales; and (c) if the infringing act is importation, how should the analysis proceed if only some of the imported products are sold in the jurisdiction and others are to be exported?

Responsible Reporter:

Ari LAAKKONEN

Chair: Johanna LILJA (FI)
Vice Chair: Tony YEO (SG)
Vice Chair: Peter SCHECHTER (US)
Secretary: Wendela HåRDEMARK (SE)
__________________________________________________________________ PLENARY SESSION (3)
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - 14:00-17:30

Chair: Charles GIELEN (NL)

Study Questions

Plausibility

Sunday, September 15 , 2019 - 09:00-15:30

Details

The requirement for plausibility is not based in legislation and is absent from TRIPS, PCT, EPC and other patent legislation. Yet a body of case law has developed to distinguish those patents and applications which demonstrate a technical effect, from purely speculative patents and applications which contain only prophetic examples. The plausibility of the alleged technical effect as set out in the patent can also affect the patentee’s ability to rely on post-filing experimental results. This “plausibility requirement” is multifaceted as it also covers aspects of credibility of the invention, sound predictability of the utility, prohibition against speculative filing and restrictions regarding prophetic examples. It is also invoked in relation to several patentability requirements such as sufficiency, inventive step, clarity and utility. AIPPI dedicated a panel session to plausibility in Sydney 2017. This session highlighted the global emergence of plausibility as a requirement, along with certain differences in approach between the USA, Europe and China. Even within Europe, the requirement is not applied consistently: France, the UK and the Netherlands have, for some time now, routinely deployed plausibility as a threshold test for challenging patent validity, but other EU jurisdictions, such as Germany, have been hesitant to use plausibility as a separate requirement, let alone as a routine test, when assessing patent validity. Reviewing this emerging “plausibility requirement” and identifying its limits is crucial to patent applicants and holders in view of its increasing relevance to the validity of their patents across multiple jurisdictions. This is particularly so in the life sciences sector where claimed technical effects are often not self-evident.

Responsible Reporter:

Ralph NACK

Chair: Thomas BOUVET (FR)
Vice Chair: Kevin SHIPLEY (CA)
Vice Chair: MaryAnne ARMSTRONG (US)
Secretary: Jaap BREMER (NL)
__________________________________________________________________ PLENARY SESSION (4)
Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - 9:00-12:30

Chair: Nicolai LINDGREEN (DK)

Panel Sessions

PS I: The art of IP – museums & architecture

Monday, September 16 , 2019 - 09:00-10:30

Details

Art and architecture have been afforded copyright protection since the Berne Convention, yet the specifics of protection have remained inconsistent, and clashes with the public interest have been frequent. Visitors to museums and other cultural heritage institutions are familiar with signs prohibiting photography, and with postcards containing copyright notices – even on reproductions of works that are obviously in the public domain. However, opinions vary about the extent to which copyright can help institutions control the use of their works of art, and how it relates to physical property rights and freedom of expression and of the arts. Cultural institutions also face their own copyright challenges when it comes to digitising and publicising their collections. Similarly, there are wide differences between countries in the protection given to architectural works, in terms of originality requirements, infringement criteria and exceptions for the use of works in public places (the ‘right of panorama’). Efforts at harmonisation or clarification have had little success. This panel will discuss the role of copyright in the protection and exploitation of art and architecture, and its interaction with other means of protection including property rights and contracts. It will touch on both the museums' and artists' perspective and will also look at relevant case law. For example, an interesting decision by the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) "Museumsfotos" will be discussed.

Panellists:

Dale Nelson, Donaldson + Callif, LLP (US) (Moderator)
Thomas Koch, German Federal Supreme Court (DE)
Eleonora Rosati, Bird & Bird LLP (UK)
Christian Zimmermann, DACS (UK)

Panel Sessions

PS II: In-house perspectives on IP enforcement

Monday, September 16 , 2019 - 11:00-12:30

Details

This Panel Session will focus on IP enforcement and litigation issues, including related multijurisdictional proceedings, from an in-house perspective. The panel will consist of in-house IP professionals who are responsible for overseeing IP litigation in various jurisdictions. The panel will discuss, amongst other matters, issues related to instructing and managing external counsel. This would include the need for inside counsel to have clear guidance on the different procedures in different jurisdictions, options, costs, the strengths and weaknesses of a case, and likelihood of outcomes, as well as the need to coordinate counsel in various countries when there are simultaneous related proceedings. The panel will also consider internal matters for which external litigation teams are often not fully aware, including the importance of securing support of upper management and affected employees, managing internal expectations and fully understanding the corporate goals in pursuing or defending litigation, organizing and conducting any necessary internal fact investigations, the identification and locating of relevant documents and witnesses, and matters related to the conducting of the trial or hearing on the merits.

Panellists:

Patrick J. Coyne, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner (US) (Moderator)
Beatrice Levy-Moulin, Valeo (FR)
Elke Simon, Boehinger Ingelheim International GmbH (DE)
Mark Snyder, Qualcomm Incorporated (US)

Panel Sessions

PS III: Describe your best defense: trade mark infringement or not?

Monday, September 16 , 2019 - 14:00-15:30

Details

When accused of trademark infringement, one of the defenses regularly raised is that the allegedly infringing use constitutes descriptive use of a characteristic of the product at issue (to be distinguished from decorative use, or comparative advertising). This Panel Session will address to what extent this defense can be raised in various jurisdictions and what criteria must be met for it to succeed. In the US, this defense is known as descriptive fair use and it can be argued when the trademark itself is descriptive in nature and the manner of use by the defendant is purely descriptive. In the EU, it is required that the use is "in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters". In countries where the defense is not provided for in the trademark law, there may be unfair competition issues. The panelists will discuss what can be defined as "classical descriptive use", showcasing examples to illustrate this. In this respect, also the question in what circumstances use is (and is not) "fair" or "honest" will be addressed.

Panellists:

Peter Widmer, FMP Fuhrer Marbach & Partners (CH) (Moderator)
Rafael ATAB, Dannemann, Siemsen, Bigler, & Ipanema Moreira (BR)
Kathy Atkinson, Kettle Foods Ltd (UK)
Ying Mu, Global Law Office (CN)
Maria Scungio, Robinson & Cole, LLP (US)

Panel Sessions

PS IV: Protecting trade secrets in the EU – new and improved?

Monday, September 16 , 2019 - 16:00-17:30

Details

In 2016, important new civil trade secret laws were promulgated both in the US and the EU with the aim to introduce a uniform approach and a stronger protection of trade secrets. The US enacted the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“USTSA”) and the EU formally adopted the Directive on the Protection of Undisclosed Know-How and Business Information (“EUTSD”) which Member States were obliged to implement before June 9, 2018. This panel session will examine the main provisions of the new Directive, assess its impact in the EU Member States, as well as compare trade secret protection in Europe with the most recent developments in the United States. In light of the new legal landscape on both sides of the Atlantic, the panel will also discuss how multinational companies could reshape their trade secret strategies to safeguard trade secrets from misappropriation. Some of the issues intended to be covered during the session include:

Objectives and key provisions of the EUTSD;
Current Implementation status and impact of the Directive in the EU Member States;
Different interpretation of national law by national courts in view of the Directive’s objectives and wording;
Comparison between the EUTSD and the USTSA: similarities and differences: exceptions from protection; and
The two regimes’ combined (and potential) impact in view of cross-border transactions.

Panellists:

Linda Lecomte, Wuersch & Gering LLP (US) (Moderator)
Pirke Fustinoni, Outotec Oyj (FI)
Stephen Mackenzie, Koch Industries (US)
Emily O'Neill, Spectrics (UK)
Sascha Schalkwijk, Secrid (NL)
Loek Steffanie, DSM (NL)

Panel Sessions

Meet the IP Offices

Tuesday, September 17 , 2019 - 09:00-10:30

Details

The following representatives will provide an update on recent developments and initiatives at their IP office:

Tim Moss, Chief Executive and Comptroller General, UK IPO
Steve Rowan, Vice President, EPO
Junjian Hu, Director of the IP Utilization Promotion Department, CNIPA
Charles Eloshway, Senior Patent Counsel, Office of Policy and International Affairs, USPTO
Maria Holtmann, Director of International Programs, USPTO

This format will be an excellent opportunity to hear the latest news from the offices and also to engage in an interactive dialogue on current issues.

Panellists:

Jonathan Osha, AIPPI (US) (Moderator)
Charles Eloshways, USPTO (US)
Maria Holtmann, USPTO (US)
Junjian Hu, CNIPA (CN)
Tim Moss, UKIPO (UK)
Stephen Rowan, EPO (DE)

Panel Sessions

PS V: BREXIT and IP: an update

Tuesday, September 17 , 2019 - 09:00-10:30

Details

At the time of writing, the UK is still in the process of reaching agreement regarding its departure from the European Union. A Withdrawal Agreement has been negotiated in principle with the European Union, but this has not yet been accepted by the UK Parliament, or by the incoming new administration in the UK. By the time of the AIPPI Congress in London, the Withdrawal Agreement may have been accepted, but other possibilities for the UK’s exit from the European Union are still possible, including a “no-deal” exit, an EEA type relationship, as well as no departure following a further referendum on the UK’s relationship. Currently the deadline for the UK to exit from the EU is on 31 October 2019 – six weeks after this Congress. The proposed panel session intends to update attendees on the current situation and explain the expected or agreed situation for IP rights which exists at the time of the Congress. Whilst nothing will change with regard to the granting of European patents via the EPO, depending on the eventual outcome, there are likely to be changes for trade marks and designs. The session will also touch on the situation for enforcement, exhaustion and the proposed Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court.

Panellists:

Daniel Cheng Yong Lim, Kirkland & Ellis (UK) (Moderator)
Aurélia Marie, Cabinet Beau de Lomenie (FR)
Ewan Nettleton, Novartis International AG (CH)
Bin Sun, Xiaomi (CN)
Joost Van Ooijen, AkzoNobel (NL)
Adam Williams, UK IP Office (UK)

Panel Sessions

PS VI: Forming portfolios for FRAND licensing: who decides?

Tuesday, September 17 , 2019 - 11:00-12:30

Details

A patent that protects technology essential to a standard is called a SEP. When a patent holder declares a patent essential to a standard set by a standard setting organization (SSO), e.g., ETSI telecommunications standard, it must make a commitment to license that patent on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms. This panel session will not address the “normal” FRAND issues (methodology of the calculation of FRAND rates, availability of injunctive relief etc.), but rather focus on two principle questions:

Who decides what the territorial scope of a FRAND licensing offer/contract is? Can a national court or an arbitration panel rule on a FRAND rate for a global/regional/local portfolio? Is it in the discretion of the patentee to determine the territorial scope of an SEP portfolio, and can a court/panel overrule such determination made by the patentee?
Who is best positioned to decide on FRAND rates? National courts or arbitration panels, or any other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms? What is the required qualification of the judges? Given the associated costs of litigation, is the court/panel expected to make its own FRAND calculation, or shall they rather approve/disapprove the concrete FRAND proposals submitted by the parties?

Panellists:

Mary-Rose McGuire, Universität Osnabrück (DE) (Moderator)
Adrian Howes, Nokia (UK)
Daniel Seikon Park, S&L Partners (KR)
Claudia Tapia Garcia, Ericsson GmbH (DE)

Panel Sessions

PS IX: Seize the day – customs and border control

Tuesday, September 17 , 2019 - 11:00-12:30

Details

The means by which goods may be prevented from entering a country or actually seized in transit can vary greatly from one jurisdiction to the next and can lead to significant legal and economic impacts for both the IP rights holders and the importers/exporters of the goods in question. This Panel session will consider the border enforcement procedures and remedies that may be available in respect of a variety of IP rights in a variety of jurisdictions. The Panel will consider not only the particular legislative or regulatory options available to IP owners, but will also consider the practical mechanisms by which customs and border control authorities deal with the IP owners and the exporters or importers of the impugned goods, and any related legal or quasi legal proceedings and rights of appeal or review. The Panel will address the topic from the perspective of border control authorities as well as from the perspective of the IP practitioner and IP owner.

Panellists:

Manon Rieger-Jansen, Bird & Bird (NL) (Moderator)
Jordi Güell, Partner (ES)
Wolf Meier-Ewert, WTO (CH)
Matthew C. Wagner, Matthew C. Wagner (US)

Panel Sessions

PS X: Right on the money – IP and finance

Tuesday, September 17 , 2019 - 14:00-15:30

Details

This panel session is the third session of “The business of IP” series, the previous two sessions having held during AIPPI 2017 in Sydney, “The business of IP in Big Data, big issues” and “The business of IP- Venturing with IP.” New technologies have led to an explosion of businesses that are rich in IP. A company’s intangible property is typically now more valuable than its physical assets and it can be commercialised in numerous ways. However, despite most countries providing mechanisms for these intangibles to be used as collateral against loan obligations - mechanisms which should inject liquidity into the economy - IP financing still remains exceptional, rather than business as usual. Valuation is commonly cited as the reason for this failure. Intellectual property rights are not generally reflected in a company’s balance sheet and assessment methodologies remain opaque, inconsistent and feel unnecessarily complex to the non-specialist. But is that the full picture? This session will examine the pitfalls and recent trends in IP financing and valuation, and address what could be done to make this a more accessible alternative for companies wanting to raise funds. In particular, the panel will discuss various initiatives undertaken in different jurisdictions to facilitate better valuation and expand IP-backed debt finance. Some of the issues may be covered during the session include the following:

An overview of IP and Finance – the commercial imperative and the practical problems with taking security;
IP Valuation – methodologies and case studies;
Value and licensing – FRAND and telecoms;
Where do IP-backed finance models operate and how;
What does the future hold?

Panellists:

Calum Smyth, Barclays Bank Plc (UK) (Moderator)
Jon Calvert, Deloitte (UK)
Junjian Hu, CNIPA (CN)
Michael Nixon, Baker & McKenzie (SG)
Jane Mutimear, Bird & Bird (UK)

Panel Sessions

PS VII: Post-grant amendments: flexibility or certainty?

Tuesday, September 17 , 2019 - 14:00-15:30

Details

Patent claims may be amended post grant. Third parties that relied on a patent being invalid may suddenly be confronted with much stronger claims, and products that arguably did not infringe prior to the amendment may suddenly be within the scope of protection of the same patent. The situation may change during an infringement action, or it is only the amendment that paves the way for the initiation of an enforcement action. Conversely, a patent owner may be confronted with prior art that was unknown to him when the defendant counterclaims for revocation and wish to amend his patent so that it can be upheld. This Panel Session will discuss to what extent post grant amendments are possible in the context of an infringement action and what impact such amendments may have on relief for the past (damages) and for the future (injunction). For example, are third parties liable for damages even if they rightfully relied on a patent being invalid in the granted form, or do they have to anticipate future amendments that will restore validity? What rule should apply if a product did not infringe a patent as granted but falls within the scope of an amended claim?

Panellists:

Koen Bijvank, Brinkhof (NL) (Moderator)
Brian Cordery, Bristows LLP (UK)
Barbara Fiacco, Foley Hoag LLP (US)
Vidisha Garg, Anand and Anand (IN)
Chuanhong Long, CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office (CN)

Panel Sessions

PS XI: Keep your hands off my brands

Tuesday, September 17 , 2019 - 16:00-17:30

Details

In a 2018 decision of the Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU, Mitsubishi, C-129/17) the Court concluded that a 3rd party, in removing original equipment manufacturer (OEM) trademarks from their machinery and replacing the OEM marks with the defendant’s marks, the defendant infringed the trademark rights of the OEM even though no actual use of the OEM trademark took place. The CJEU’s decision was contrary to a number of earlier decisions from some EU member state courts and tribunals that had reached the opposite conclusion. This panel will discuss the basis of the CJEU decision, how it fits within the context of the trademark law, and the broader issue of de-branding of OEM products in various jurisdictions in the rest of Europe, in Asia, and the Americas. The panel will consider the decision in light of prevailing law in other jurisdictions under the doctrine of trademark exhaustion. The panel will also consider other related issues that may arise in the context of conduct of this kind, including considerations of unfair competition, consumer protection laws, and false advertising laws.

Panellists:

Dennis Prahl, Ladas & Parry LLP (US) (Moderator)
Dan Chen, Fairsky Law OFfice (CN)
Santiago Ortuzar, Alessandri (CL)
Paolina Testa, FTCC Studio Legale Associato (IT)

Panel Sessions

PS VIII: Patents and Artificial Intelligence: what’s next?

Tuesday, September 17 , 2019 - 16:00-17:30

Details

Artificial Intelligence, or “AI”, has gained prominence across many sectors from healthcare to finance, telecommunications to marketing, and transportation to genetics. A Panel Session at the Cancun Congress in 2018 introduced some fundamental concepts of AI and discussed AI in the broader context of intellectual property rights. This Panel Session will now specifically focus on patents in relation to AI. Protecting AI with patents raises many interesting issues including patent eligibility, clarity, disclosure and enablement. Previous sessions have focused on some or all of these issues at a high level. This panel session will dig into some of the substantive topics relevant to AI by focusing on real life examples and considering how different jurisdictions are likely to approach these examples. Our panelists will be patent practitioners, both in-house and from outside counsel firms, who handle AI related subject matter from a variety of technology sectors on a daily basis. They will speak with in depth experience from recent cases, focusing on practical issues that will inform and educate

Panellists:

John Brunner, Carpmeals & Ransford (US) (Moderator)
Vanessa Bailey, Intel Corp. (US)
Kate Gaudry, Kilpatrick Townsend (US)
Lili Wu, Han Kun Law Offices (CN)

Panel Sessions

PS XII: MOCK - Designs on trial

Wednesday, September 18 , 2019 - 09:00-12:30

Details

Following the success of mock patent trials at the 2008, 2012 and 2016 Congresses, and the mock international IP arbitration at the 2014 Congress, the London 2019 Congress will showcase a mock designs trial. The London 2019 Congress mock trial is designed to demonstrate the general nature of designs litigation and to highlight many of the key issues in designs litigation today, including scope of protection, validity, infringement and remedies. It will consist of two parts. To start with, leading IP litigators from around the world will act as mock participants in a hypothetical litigation regarding wearable health devices with graphical user interfaces and will argue their case before a panel of international judges. The case will apply European Union design law. After the judges hand down their verdict, the judges and advocates will discuss how the case would have differed – both substantively and procedurally – under the laws in their countries.

Panellists:

Christopher Carani, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd (US) (Moderator)
Peter Damerell, Powell Gilbert LLP (UK) (Moderator)
Steven Bauer, Proskauer (US)
Melissa Clarke, Courts and Tribunals (UK)
Clare Cunliffe, Victorian Bar (AU)
Jens Künzel, Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben (DE)
Reina Weening, Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden (NL)
Fei Xu, The Supreme People's Court of China (CN)

Panel Sessions

PS XIII: A platform for discussion: liability & safe harbour

Wednesday, September 18 , 2019 - 09:00-10:30

Details

This panel will discuss recent developments at the intersection of digital copyright and intermediary liability, with a focus on Article 17 of the just-adopted EU copyright directive. Formerly known as Article 13, this provision declares that ‘online content sharing service providers’ must obtain licenses for their users’ uploads and cannot invoke the safe harbor for hosting providers. Where they do not or cannot obtain a license, they will be liable unless they can demonstrate that they made ‘best efforts’ to obtain a license and ‘ensure the unavailability’ of protected works. An proactive filtering obligation in all but name, this provision has the potential fundamentally to change the online content landscape: for the better, according to rightholders who argue that US platforms have for too long enriched themselves at the expense of European makers; for the worse, according to free-speech activists, academics and the platforms themselves. Our panel will bring together expert voices from academia, rightholders, and tech platforms, to debate the genesis, scope, implementation and potential ramifications of perhaps the most controversial piece of European IP legislation of all time.

Panellists:

Remy Chavannes, Brinkhof (NL) (Moderator)
Christina Angelopoulos, University of Cambridge (UK)
Sophie Goossens, Reed Smith (FR)
Cédric Manara, Google (FR)
Tara Sherbrooke, ICE (UK)

Panel Sessions

Hot Topics

Wednesday, September 18 , 2019 - 11:00-12:30

Details

AIPPI’s traditional “hot topics” session will feature updates on five current issues:

The new Beijing Internet Court, presented by the Honorable Judge Ying Jiang
The new TRIPS case law database, presented by Mr. Antony Taubman, Director, IP Division, WTO
The Music Modernization Act in the United States, presented by Ms. Lisa Margolis
Compulsory licensing of patents in the pharma sector, presented by Ms. Pat Treacy
The HCCH judgements project as it relates to IP, presented by Mr. Ken Adamo

Come join us to hear about the latest developments!

Panellists:

Sarah Matheson, Allens (AU) (Moderator)
Kenneth Adamo, Kirkland & Ellis LLP (US)
Ying Jiang, Beijing Internet Court (CN)
Lisa Margolis, Warner Brothers (US)
Antony Taubman, WTO (CH)
Pat Treacy, Bristows LLP (UK)

Pharma Day

Pharma 1: Wait! Pay for delay

Monday, September 16 , 2019 - 09:00-10:30

Details

This Panel Session will consider the issue of so-called “Pay for Delay” agreements in the pharmaceutical patent context. It has become common in various jurisdictions, for innovative and generic drug companies involved in disputes where the validity of the patent is challenged, to consider as a possible basis for settlement, an agreement whereby, amongst other terms, the innovator makes to the generic a monetary payment in return for the generic agreeing to drop its challenge of the patent and to delay its entry of a generic product into the market for a certain period of time. These types of agreements have raised concerns amongst various national competition authorities, including the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the European Competition Commission that such agreements in delaying the entry of a generic product that would otherwise compete with the brand name product, as being contrary to anti-trust or anti-competition laws. For example, a recent decision of the European Union General Court, in the Servier matter, while reducing the fines levied against the innovative and generic firms for a “pay for delay” type agreement, nevertheless upheld the decision that fines were warranted. The panel will discuss the tension between the need for parties to be able to settle patent disputes under reasonable terms, and the potential anti-competitive effects of an innovative drug company paying a generic to delay its entry into the market. In so doing, the panel will review the viability of such agreements in various jurisdictions, and issues that parties should be aware of in crafting settlements with a “pay to delay” term.

Panellists:

Jeremie Jourdan, White & Case LLP (BE) (Moderator)
Takanori Abe, Abe & Partners (JP)
Erin Dunston, Bachanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (US)
Christian Vollrath, EU Commission (DE)

Pharma Day

Pharma 2: Patent Linkage: an international perspective

Monday, September 16 , 2019 - 11:00-12:30

Details

The panel session will address patent linkage, i.e. the possible connection between the market approval process for generic or biosimilar drugs and the patent status of the reference drug. Countries like the USA have long implemented patent linkage systems for generic drugs and biosimilars. Patent linkage is now also starting to emerge as a regional methodology in Asia, including China, as such a system is seen to provide some clarity to market players through the early resolution of patent issues. A large variety of patent linkage systems exists. In contrast, the European Union has not adopted a patent linkage system, although in European countries, some information is provided to the patent holder at some stages of marketing authorisation and price setting. This panel session will examine the patent linkage systems of several countries and update attendees on the current situation globally. The session will include discussion between the speakers regarding the advantages and disadvantages of patent linkage, and other ways of solving the problems addressed by patent linkage. This panel session will consist of speakers from Europe, USA and Latin America.

Panellists:

Charles Boulakia, Ridout & Maybee LLP (CA) (Moderator)
Leticia Leon, Novartis (MX)
Elise Melon, UCB Biopharma SPRL (US)
John Todaro, Merck & Co (US)
Nicolas Vincent Ruiz, Esteve Pharmaceuticals, SA (ES)

Pharma Day

Pharma 3: Hot and hostile: recent developments in SPCs and patent term extensions

Monday, September 16 , 2019 - 14:00-15:30

Details

Recent court decisions and new regulations are having a significant impact on the value and viability of Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) for pharmaceutical products in Europe, and corresponding Patent Term Extension (PTE) provisions in other countries. How will these changes affect new innovations, and how do they compare and contrast across jurisdictions? SPCs and PTEs provide an additional period of protection to a basic patent – up to five years – to compensate for patent term lost in regulatory review. The regulations generally require that only one SPC or PTE can be granted to a product for the first marketing authorization. Recent decisions from and referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will impact the validity of SPCs for combination products, and for holders of a patent that covers a marketing authorization held by a third party. In addition, new EU regulations will allow manufacturing and stockpiling of medicinal products during the term of an SPC. Key issues include:

How are provisions for patent term restoration similar and different across jurisdictions?
When is a new product not a new product?
What are the pros and cons of allowing an SPC to a patent holder who is not the marketing authorization holder?
How will the SPC manufacturing waiver work in practice?
What are the implications for the future of patent term extensions and SPCs?

Panellists:

Manisha A. Desai, UCB Pharma (US) (Moderator)
Scott Burwell, Finnegan (US)
James Horgan, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited (UK)
Takeshi Komatani, Shusaku Yamamoto (JP)

Pharma Day

Pharma 4: Antibodies and epitope/competitive claims

Monday, September 16 , 2019 - 16:00-17:30

Details

Biopharmaceutical companies are beginning to see a dramatic contrast in the scope of patent protection they obtain for therapeutic antibodies. These differences are often dependent entirely on which patent office is doing the examining. Antibody therapies are rapidly increasing our treatment options for a wide variety of disease states, including cancer, cardiovascular, and inflammatory diseases. However, the way in which antibody claims are treated can vary widely, as demonstrated by conflicting decisions in the United States and Europe. This session will examine the treatment of antibody claims in various jurisdictions with regard to sufficiency (enablement and written description) and inventive step (obviousness). The divergence of practices raises a number of procedural and policy questions for the patent practitioner, which will be addressed in this session.

When and where is it sufficient to claim antibodies by the epitope to which they bind or by their functional characteristics?
Are antibody claims treated differently from small molecules or other products, and is this difference warranted?
Is there a separate written description requirement? Should there be?
Should broad antibody claims serve as a basis for permanent injunctions?

Panellists:

Jürgen Meier, Vossius & Partner (DE) (Moderator)
Graeme Boocock, BLG - Bordner Ladner Gervais LLP (CA)
Caihui Li, Sunshine Guojian (CN)
Michele Wales, InHouse Patent Counsel (US)
Osamu Yamamoto, Yuasa & Hara (JP)

Lunch Sessions

Lunch Session 1: An update from USPTO Director Andrei Iancu

Monday, September 16 , 2019 - 12:30-14:00

Details

Director Andrei Iancu assumed the roles of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on February 8, 2018, following nomination by President Trump and unanimous confirmation by the U.S. Senate. He holds a Juris Doctor from the UCLA School of Law as well as a Master of Science in mechanical engineering and a Bachelor of Science in aerospace engineering. During this informative lunch session, Director Iancu will provide an update on his first 18 months at the helm of the USPTO, including discussions of current challenges and initiatives. Written questions will be taken from the floor at the end of the session.

Panellists:

Andrei Iancu, USPTO (US)

Lunch Sessions

Lunch Session 2: IP in fashion: iconic products, influencers, greenwashing and design lifecycles

Tuesday, September 17 , 2019 - 12:30-14:00

Details

This lunch session will cover new and developing IP issues arising in the fashion industry, with a particular focus on British fashion brands. The session will be centered on how IP issues arise during the lifecycle of a product in the fashion sector. This involves consideration of how IP is dealt with at the outset at the design stage (e.g. in the choice of materials and fabrics), during the design process and also how IP protection continues post-launch (e.g. when products are promoted using influencers). The panel will consider what measures can or should be taken to protect iconic products that require greater protection due to the extensive counterfeiting and piracy that iconic products are subjected to. In particular, where iconic products create a trend that others follow, this panel will consider to what extent is it legitimate to follow the trend and make products with a similar ethos, echoing the design of the iconic trend-setter. Concrete examples of product launches will be used as case studies to examine the IP protection necessary to counter the flood of counterfeits that follow. The level of IP protection available in particular key jurisdictions can be instrumental to the effective control of counterfeit products. The panel will also touch on misleading marketing and unfair competition issues where relevant to or linked with the protection of IP. “Greenwashing” is understood as the misleading marketing and promotion of green-based environmental initiatives with the goal of increasing sales, without actually implementing practices that minimize environmental impact in the manufacture and sales of goods. For example, clothes may be falsely labelled as “organic” so as to increase sales. Greenwashing may amount to unfair competition, and might also be conduct that is barred under consumer protection legislation such as the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

Panellists:

Karen Abraham, Shearn Delamore & Co (MY) (Moderator)
James Sweeting, Superdry PLC (UK) (Moderator)
Rory O'Hare, New Balance (UK)
Catrin Turner, Dr. Martens (UK)

Lunch Sessions

Lunch Session 3: Africa and innovation

Wednesday, September 18 , 2019 - 12:30-14:00

Details

This engaging lunch session focused on innovation in Africa will feature four inspiring and awardwinning innovators from around Africa who will each present the highlights of their work. Based on these examples of innovation and entrepreneurship in four different fields and geographical regions, a broader discussion will follow on the business and innovation climate in Africa and the core role played by intellectual property.

Panellists:

Bianca Reichelt Mathe, . (ZA) (Moderator)
Omolabake Adenle, aja la Studios (UK)
Dorothy Nakimbugwe, BioInnovate Africa (UG)

Plenary Sessions

Plenary Session for proposed Resolution (A) Multilateral agreement on Client Attorney Privilege

Monday, September 16 , 2019 - 09:00-10:30

Details

Responsible Reporter:

Ari LAAKKONEN

Chair: Andrew HESS (CH)
Vice Chair: Sarah MATHESON (AU)
Vice Chair: Robert MATTSON (US)
Secretary: Steven GARLAMD (CA)

2019 AIPPI World Congress – LondonSeptember 15 - 18

VENUES

Exhibitors & Media Partners

2020 AIPPI WORLD CONGRESS – HANGZHOU

2021 AIPPI WORLD CONGRESS – SAN FRANCISCO

ABPI - BRAZILIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION

ACTIO

ACUMASS

AFRICAN REGIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (ARIPO)

AIPEX

ASIA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL

ASIA IP

BEIJING THINKIN CONSULTING CO., LTD

BILLTRADER

CHINA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL (CBLJ)

CHINA IP MAGAZINE

CPA GLOBAL

FELLOWS AND ASSOCIATES

HONG KONG TRADE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

IAM

INDIA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL (IBLJ)

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MAGAZINE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PUBLISHING HOUSE CO.,LTD.

INTER-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (ASIPI)

INVENTA INTERNATIONAL

IP STATION

IP-COSTER NETWORK

IPPRO

LEADERS LEAGUE

MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - IP STARS

MARCASUR

MINESOFT

PATENT SEEKERS

PATENT-PILOT

PATENTLY LTD

PATRIX IP HELPWARE

PAVIS GMBH

PREMIER CERCLE

RWS

SUNYU GROUP

SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – IP-SEARCH

THE GLOBAL IP MATRIX

THE PATENT LAWYER

WISETIME, BY PRACTICE INSIGHT

WOLTERS KLUWER

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (WIPO)

WORLD IP REVIEW

Sponsors

INTEL CORPORATION

ABU-GHAZALEH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (AGIP)

BIRD & BIRD LLP

BOULT WADE TENNANT LLP

CARPMAELS & RANSFORD

CCPIT PATENT AND TRADEMARK LAW OFFICE

EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE

HAN KUN LAW OFFICES

IP FA©TOR – ISRAEL'S INTERNATIONAL PATENT AND TRADEMARK ATTORNEYS

LSP PARTNERSHIP

LUIZ LEONARDOS IP

PARK IP TRANSLATIONS, A WELOCALIZE COMPANY

PARKER & PARKER – INDIA

R K DEWAN & CO

SBGK ATTORNEYS AT LAW AND PATENT ATTORNEYS

THE PCT NETWORK

THE UK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PROFESSIONS

WIGGIN LLP

ZUYKOV AND PARTNERS

MATERIALS

Study Questions

Copyright in artificially generated works

Study Questions

Consumer survey evidence

Study Questions

IP damages for acts other than sales

Study Questions

Plausibility

Panel Sessions

PS I: The art of IP – museums & architecture

Panel Sessions

PS II: In-house perspectives on IP enforcement

2019 AIPPI World Congress – London
September 15 - 18