2016 Panel Sessions

2016 Panel Sessions

Panel Session Brexit– Implications for IP
Sunday, September 18, 2016 from 08.30 to 09.30

AIPPI is pleased to announce that the professional development programme of the Congress will now commence  with a briefing on the implications for IP rights  in the UK and the EU. Our panellists will debate topics including:

  • possible changes to substantive IP laws where they have been harmonized at EU level
  • the role of national case law once the Court of Justice for the European Union is no longer  competent for prejudicial interpretation regarding the UK law
  • the role of the EPO in maintaining  harmonization of the interpretation of the substantive rules of patent law
  • enforcement strategies in cases with cross-border issues,

as well as the implications for:

  • the EU IPR Enforcement Directive
  • Brussels Regulation /Rome II and service issues
  • the European Digital Single Market
  • the Biotech Directive
  • Customs seizures
  • exhaustions of rights
  • licensing, settlements and competition issues
  • transitional provisions.

The panel will also explore the treaty implications relevant to various proposals for managing IP in the context of Brexit as well as the different impacts on IP as a function of the different models the UK could adopt outside the EU, such as the  Norway model, bilateral agreements or a WTO-only model.

Access the presentations here



Prof. Cesare Galli, IP Law Galli (IT)


Tobias Dolde, Noerr LLP (DE)

Francesca Giovannini, Osha Liang (FR)

Gordon Harris, Gowling WLG (UK)


Pharma Session 1 – “In(gene)ious” but not patentable? Patentable subject matter
Monday, September 19, 2016 from 09.00 to 10.30

The patentability of inventions relating to genes, stem cells or other biological material, dosage regime and diagnostic testing, amongst other topics, has always been of primary importance for the life sciences industry – from fundamental research institutes to pharmaceutical companies.

Recent years have seen an apparent reversal in the approach to patentability. The US Supreme Court seems to have abandoned its “anything under the sun” doctrine with its very restrictive decisions in the Prometheus and Myriad cases; Australia seems to be following suit.

Paradoxically, in light of how difficult it was to adopt, Europe seems to have been insulated from this trend by the operation of the Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, although the Directive leaves many issues open. The evolving position in Asia is uncertain and far from uniform.

This panel session will review the current state of the law and policy trends in relation to patentable subject matter in key jurisdictions. In particular, it will focus on the consequences for industry of these recent changes. The panel will also discuss the question of what the appropriate boundaries for patentable subject matter should be.

Access the presentations here



Penny Gilbert, Powell Gilbert (UK)


Manisha Desai, Assistant General Patent Counsel, Eli Lilly (US)

Denise Hirsch, Director, Protection and Institutional Partnerships, Inserm Transfert (FR)

Gesheng Huang, Zhongzi Law Office (CN)

Justice John Nicholas, Federal Court of Australia (AU)


Pharma Session 2 – Biosimilars – similar but different?
Monday, September 19, 2016 from 11.00 to 12.30

Medicines made via biotechnology involving living organisms are more complex than conventional medicines (also referred to as small molecule drugs). Being made of chemical substances, the structure of a small molecule drug can be identified, and an identical compound can be synthesized. As the copy can be considered bioequivalent, regulatory authorities can be confident this generic version should produce the same result in patients.

Biologic medicines are more difficult to identify and characterize. While a biologic has no generic “equivalent”, from a regulatory perspective, “biosimilars” are expected to have no clinically meaningful difference for the patient in terms of safety and efficacy, and should be highly comparable to the reference biologic medicine. Some regulatory authorities further distinguish biosimilar medicines by whether they are also “interchangeable” with the reference product. Interchangeable medicines are also expected to produce no different results in any patient, even if alternated with the reference product.

Many innovator biopharma companies have developed or are developing biologics. Competition from biosimilars and interchangeable products is growing. Because they may differ structurally from the reference product, they may not fall within any relevant patent claims covering the reference product.

Around the world, regulatory agencies have taken varied approaches to approval of biosimilar and interchangeable products. This may have implications for substitutability and flow-on pricing decisions. There are also implications for exclusivity, whether by patent protection or other means. This session will involve examination of these issues by a variety of both regulatory and patent specialists, including in house counsel.

Access the presentations here



Dominic Adair, Bristows (UK)


Fritz Reiter, Regulatory CMC Team Leader, Sandoz GmbH (AT)

Dr. Mei-Hsin Wang, China BioMedical & Technology Application Association (TW)

Bryan Zielinski, Vice-President, Patents, Pfizer (US)


Pharma Session 3 – Skinny Labels – Wide Impact
Monday, September 19, 2016 from 14.00 to 15.30

The development of new drugs is highly expensive, with an accompanying high risk of failure. Drug development based on the success of a known active ingredient – a “second medical use” – reduces the risk that the active ingredient is not suitable for human application. Such new uses often provide critical solutions to unmet medical needs. However, the ability to obtain and enforce patent protection for second medical uses varies between jurisdictions.

The legal uncertainty arising from variation as to the form and availability of claims to second medical uses is particularly acute when patent protection for the original use has expired, but there is a patent in force covering the new use. Generic drugs may be approved for the original use, but with a label which omits any mention of the second use – a “skinny” label, or a label which expressly disclaims the second use. Notwithstanding the patent position, medical practitioners may prescribe, pharmacies may dispense, and patients may use the generic drug not only for the original use.

This raises issues for establishing infringement, including whether (for example) the supplier of the generic drug can be held to have induced the infringement the second medical use patent; or who may be liable at all, if the actual infringer is the patient. German and British courts have recently reached diverging positions as to the scope of protection of second medical use patents when it comes to so-called skinny labeling or off label use. US courts are also grappling with issues of contributory infringement.

The question is therefore how to enforce patents on second medical uses in these circumstances Panelists from the US, Europe and Asia will discuss what claim formats are available, the protection they can provide and the best approaches to protect these important inventions.

Access the presentations here



Thomas Bouvet, Véron & Associés (FR)


Karsten Königer, Harmsen Utescher (DE)

Mark Ridgway, Allen & Overy (UK)

Neil Trueman, Director of European IP Strategy, Mundipharma (UK)

Larry Welch, Senior Director, Assistant General Patent Counsel, Eli Lilly (US)


Pharma Session 4 – Antitrust and Pharma – Seeking a Balance
Monday, September 19, 2016 from 16.00 to 17.30

While national patent and competition (also referred to as “anti-trust”) laws can rightly be viewed as two complementary policy regimes for governments to use in the promotion of robust and efficient economies, there has always been a natural tension between the two given that one grants monopoly rights while the other typically is directed to promoting freedom of competition and the avoidance or limitation on monopoly power in the marketplace.

For example, while patent protection has for many years been one of the key elements to promoting investment in R&D in the pharmaceutical industry, there is an increasing focus by governments, NGOs and others on ensuring that the benefits of any such patent rights be balanced with the public policy goals of providing access to affordable healthcare to individuals and controlling healthcare costs incurred by governments and health care providers.

This panel session will consider the complimentary yet competing goals of patent and competition laws in the context of the pharmaceutical industry. This will include consideration of the various means which seek to achieve an appropriate balance between the two regimes. These include the available patent protection, enforcement mechanisms including settlement considerations, pricing restraints and licensing/assignment considerations. The Italian Antitrust Authority is regarded as a “trailblazer” with some recent decisions in this context; its recent activities will be examined along with perspectives from a variety of other jurisdictions.

Access the presentations here

Access the Handout on Italian cases here



Duncan Ribbons, Redd Solicitors (UK)


Prof. Michael Carrier, Rutgers University School of Law (US)

Commissioner Gabriella Muscolo, Italian Antitrust Authority (IT)

Yoichi Okumura, General Manager – Intellectual Property, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd (JP)


Panel Session I – General IP –Buon appetito! IP & Food
Sunday, September 18, 2016 from 14.00 to 15.30

The food industry is an IP-intensive industry.

The Milan EXPO 2015 “Feeding the planet, energy for life” was represented by 145 countries and attracted more than 22 million visitors, underpinning the indisputable and fundamental relevance of the food industry. While the financial figures for food are difficult to categorise and measure, many analysts agree that the food industry – agribusiness and packaged food – is not only one of the world’s largest industries, but also one of the fastest growing.

Every food sector business creates various forms of IP, across the full spectrum of IP regimes. In addition to the more traditional role of trademarks in any branding strategy, trademarks play a role in protecting rights in food design and food packaging, the issues including the subject matter and scope of protection conferred by collective marks and (non-traditional) shape marks. Patents can protect not only the composition of the food itself but also innovation in food technology – how food is made, processed and packaged. Design rights which can protect food shapes, textures or materials; and copyright and trade secrets (such as in relation to recipes and descriptions of techniques), each also have a role to play.

This panel session will explore and illustrate the key issues for IP protection in the food sector.

Access the presentations here



Fabrizio Sanna, Orsingher Ortu (IT)


Andrea Chianura, Counsel – IP & International Business, Group Legal Department, Lavazza (IT)

Daniele Lingua, IP Director, Ferrero Group (IT)

David Postolski, Gearhart Law (US)

Cornelis Schüller, Group Head of Patents and Assistant Vice-President, Nestec Ltd. (CH)


Panel Session II – Patent Infringers without borders – current issues in contributory infringement
Sunday, September 18, 2016 from 14.00 to 15.30

Particularly in the high-tech arena, patent claims to a process or method often include steps that could conceivably be performed by multiple actors, rather than a single actor of all the steps of the claimed process or method. This is relevant to proving infringement, including whether the rights holder may need to rely on contributory or indirect infringement.

Last year, in the remanded case of Akamai, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found “direct infringement” of a method patent in circumstances where not all of the steps were performed by the defendant alone. In the same case, in 2012, the CAFC initially made a finding of “contributory infringement” despite no finding of “direct infringement”.

Whether patent claims of this type should be capable of being infringed by multiple actors, and whether any finding of infringement is on the basis of direct or indirect infringement is a topical issue not only in the US but in other jurisdictions. These issues are compounded in the context of cross‑border infringement, where the multiple actors may be located in different jurisdictions, and subject to different laws of patent infringement.

This panel session will look at how different jurisdictions have tackled these issues, including the practical implications for proving patent infringement and best practice in claims drafting.

Access the presentations here



Emily O’Neill, IP & Litigation Counsel, Spectris (UK)


MaryAnne Armstrong, Birch Stewart Kolasch Birch LLP (US)

Prof. Dr. Matthias Leistner, University of Bonn (DE)

Yanfeng Xiong, China Patent Agent (H.K.) Ltd (CN)


Panel Session III – Copyright/Trademark – An indication of developments in GIs
Sunday, September 18, 2016 from 16.00 to 17.30

The new Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement was adopted on 20 May 2015, but not without enormous controversy stemming from fundamental differences in the systems for the protection of geographical indications (GIs) around the world as well as concerns about the effect of the changes. While some countries see the new Act as a major improvement in the protection of GIs, others consider it a step backwards.

This panel session will provide a general overview of the provisions introduced in the Act and review whether the new Act is aligned with trademark law in particular – such as whether GIs may coexist with prior trademarks – and IP law more generally.

The panel will furthermore examine reactions to the Act in different jurisdictions looking at the practical implications of the Act and, in relation thereto, whether the Act is consistent with the goals set at the outset of the negotiations. While the “Lisbon members” from central and southern Europe who drove the agreement consider it will improve global protection for GI products, a number of major economies (including the United States, Japan, Australia and South Korea) argued it would adversely affect their respective economies. This panel will explore the interplay between economic perspectives and traditions of various countries in this context.

Illustrated by topical examples, this panel session will be of interest to a worldwide audience, and of particular interest to those coming from countries (such as our host country Italy) that attach great value to local typical products.

Access the presentations here



Giulio Sironi, Vanzetti & Associates (IT)


Federico Desimoni, Director, Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena (IT)

David Muls, Senior Director, Law and Legislative Advice Division, Brands and Designs Sector, WIPO

Miwako Takimura, Seiwa Patent and Law (JP)


Panel Session IV – General IP –Top IP tips: the TPP and the TTIP
Sunday, September 18, 2016 from 16.00 to 17.30

In February 2016, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was signed by twelve countries in the Pacific Rim region: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. The TPP is currently the largest ever free trade agreement representing more than 40% of the world’s GPP and 25% of its trade. It has been described as an economic integration that ‘competes’ with Europe.

While the TPP spans many areas of trade, this panel session will focus on the TPP’s comprehensive IP provisions, many of which were very contentious in the negotiations. These include data exclusivity, patent linkage, term of copyright protection, ISP safe harbors, GIs, grace period and statutory damages. The TPP has many TRIPs-plus clauses that will no doubt require changes to the IP laws of many of its parties.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which is currently under negotiation between the United States and Europe, has attracted relatively less controversy thanthe TPP, but which is also expected to have comprehensive IP provisions.

This panel session will look at the IP agreements made underthe TPP, the purpose of such agreements and the implications for the member states that have signed the TPP. The panel session will also look at the possible impact of the TPP on the TTIP and other issues that are emerging in the TTIP negotiations.

Access the presentations here



Sharon Israel, Mayer Brown / President, AIPLA (US)


Lauma Buka, Policy Officer-Trade Negotiator, European Commission, DG Trade

Guillermo Carey, Carey (CL)

Sheena Jacob, Tan Rajah & Cheah (SG)

Antony Taubman, Director, IP Secretariat, WTO


Panel Session V – General IP – IP & Fashion: protect your style
Monday, September 19, 2016 from 09.00 to 10.30

The global fashion industry is estimated to be worth around US$1.2 trillion. It is also a very IP-intensive industry with the application of intellectual capital to the creation and marketing of products from high end couture houses to ready-to-wear and street fashion clothing lines.
IP has a role to play in protecting the appearance of articles, ornamentation and elements of fashion products. Copyright, designs, trademarks and unfair competition all immediately come to mind, with the many iconic brands across the full spectrum of the fashion industry. Also important is patent protection for technical innovation in e.g. fabrics and textiles, and the protection afforded by trade secrets to business models and production techniques.
IP protection for items of fashion is important to incentivising the continuous generation of creative ideas in an industry which employs tens of millions of people worldwide, and to encourage ongoing investment in time and capital. The enforcement of IP rights is essential to protect technical innovation, and to prevent the proliferation of the counterfeit goods and copycat products that can flood the market quickly after the launch of a new product line. On the other hand, fashion often borrows and builds upon what has come before, and following a trend may as such not constitute an infringement.
Against a background where all financial forecasts point to trends of expansion and disruption in the global fashion industry, and the associated opportunities and risks that creates for IP, this panel session will focus on key issues and challenges for IP protection in this sector.

Access the presentations here



Aurélia Marie, Cabinet Beau de Loménie (FR)


Pravin Anand, Anand & Anand Advocates (IN)

Christopher V. Carani, Esq., McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. (US)

Nicolas Martin, Head of IP, Hermes (FR)

Federica Zambelli, Worldwide Intellectual Property and Brand Protection Senior Manager, Moncler (IT)


Panel Session VI – High Technology – Computer implemented technologies: patentable?
Monday, September 19, 2016 from 11.00 to 12.30

The patentability of computer implemented technologies has been under the spotlight since Alice Corp v CLS Bank began its journey to the US Supreme Court. In 2014, the US Supreme Court decided that the patent claims in issue were invalid as being directed to an unpatentable ‘abstract idea’.

This decision has had a significant effect on patent issuance in the United States for computer implemented technologies. Some commentators have suggested that with the courts and the USPTO are unsure how to interpret or apply the decision with any consistency. Others have speculated that the approach is similar to that which has been practised by the EPO for many years.

At the very least, there is significant uncertainty among IP practitioners worldwide as to where the boundaries lie in many jurisdictions concerning what is patentable in the field of computer implemented technologies. Even in jurisdictions traditionally regarded as more liberal, there seems to be a trend towards curtailing the scope of patentability in this area.

This panel session will compare the current state of the law in key jurisdictions, including in the US and Europe, and elsewhere where there have been recent decisions. In line with AIPPI’s ongoing goals, the session will also examine whether there is scope for clarification of practices and harmonization, as well as providing practical recommendations for overcoming subject matter rejections during prosecution.

Access the presentations here



Ralph Nack, Noerr / Assistant Reporter General, AIPPI (DE)


Richard Beem, Beem Patent Law (US)

Jonathan Moss, Hogarth Chambers (UK)

Kenichi Nagasawa, Group Executive of Corporate Intellectual Property & Legal Headquarters, Canon inc / President, AIPPI Japan (JP)


Panel Session VII – High Technology –No frontiers: the European Digital Single Market
Monday, September 19, 2016 from 14.00 to 15.30

It was the number 1 priority of Jean Claude Juncker, when he became European Commission President in 2014, to create “a digital single market for consumers and businesses”. Since then, the Commission has been intensively working on developing the idea of such “DSM”. While broader than IP, copyright is a clear focus of the Commission’s DSM strategy “towards a modern, more European copyright framework.” One example is the proposal for a regulation to ensure cross-border portability of online content services which would enable consumers to use their payTV services more broadly in EU countries.

The existing EU copyright directives are also under review. The EU Cable & Satellite Directive may be extended to regulate internet re-transmissions and to allow a European-wide dissemination of certain broadcasting content on the internet, under a country of origin rule. The exceptions and limitations of copyright are also under review, with the aim of achieving a higher level of pan-European harmonization. The Commission also is looking to ensure fair remuneration in copyright, and at closing possible “value gaps” which may currently support the business models of certain online service providers.

Experts from the European Commission and stakeholders from relevant interest groups will explain and discuss the current status of the DSM project where it will take European copyright law in the future, and necessarily the scope of exhaustion of copyright. In addition to what stakeholders need to know to navigate the new world of the DSM, the panel will provide insights to assist practising copyright lawyers in advising their clients.

Access the presentations here



Stefan Naumann, Hughes Hubbard (FR)


Jan Bernd Nordemann, Boehmert & Boehmert (DE)

Julia Reda, German Pirate Party / Member of the European Parliament (DE)

Ted Shapiro, Wiggin (UK)


Panel Session VIII – Patents – Prioritising priority rights
Monday, September 19, 2016 from 16.00 to 17.30

The Paris Convention provides for right holders to make a claim to priority across multiple countries and regions, and thereby extend rights internationally. This is a fundamental aspect of the international system for acquiring IP rights. However, certain requirements need to be fulfilled when making a claim to priority. If it is determined later that one or more of the requirements have not been met, this can have a devastating effect on the validity of rights in individual jurisdictions.

In recent years, certain jurisdictions have considered the requirements for making a valid claim to priority, particularly in respect of the requirement for the priority claim to be made by the original applicant or their successor in title. Often the rules governing the succession of IP rights are set by a different jurisdiction. This has led to difficulties in determining whether there is a valid transfer of a priority right.

This panel session will examine the requirements for claiming priority as set out in the Paris Convention, and go on to consider the potential pitfalls for right holders, in terms of both validity and litigation impacts. The panel will also examine how these can be avoided and strategies to mitigate possible problems. The discussion will cover the practice and case law from key jurisdictions, as well as the jurisdictional issues that can arise.

Access the presentations here



Koen Bijvank, V.O. Patents & Trademarks / President, AIPPI Netherlands (NL)


Tobias Bremi, Isler & Pedrazzini (CH)

Abe Hershkovitz, Hershkovitz & Associates (US)

Jennifer Jones, Bird & Bird (UK)


Panel Session IX – Patent – The UPC – Brexit or business as usual?
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 from 08.30 to 12.30

This year was to mark the countdown to the commencement of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). With the unexpected outcome of the Brexit vote in the UK, the first part of this session will now be devoted to a panel discussion covering a range of perspectives on the implications of Brexit on the UPC.

While it is almost certain there will be no clear answers on the Brexit implications by the time of the Congress, the Preparatory Committee is continuing its work assuming entry into force of the UPC.

The second part of this session will be a mock trial operating under the UPC rules. This will be based on a hypothetical case including interesting issues of substantive law and procedural rules, selected on the basis of differences in approaches to these issues by present courts in the EU.

The subject matter (biosimilars) is very topical and of broad interest regardless of the immediate future of the UPC. The panel of judges will hear an application for a preliminary injunction (PI), from which there will be an appeal. The claimant and defendant will each be represented by a small team of advocates In addition to testing the  UPC rules, this will provide a variety of national perspectives on advocacy and judicial reasoning in biosimilars litigation and PI applications

The time for Q&A provides the opportunity for the audience to address questions not only to the mock trial judges, but also experts from user associations, the EPO and private practice.

Access the presentation and background documents here


Part 1 – Brexit implications for the UPC


Thierry Calame, Lenz & Staehelin (CH)


Daniel Alexander QC, 8 New Square, Intellectual Property (UK)

Margot Fröhlinger, Principal Director of patent law and multilateral affairs, European Patent Office

Clemens Heusch, Nokia Solutions & Networks GmbH & Co KG (DE)

Thierry Sueur, Vice-President, Intellectual Property and Vice-President, European & International Affairs, Air Liquide / Chair, Patents Working Group, Business Europe (FR)

Part 2 – UPC Mock trial


Thierry Calame, Lenz & Staehelin (CH)


Justice Henry Carr, High Court (UK)

Judge Rian Kalden, Court of Appeal, The Hague (NL)

Chief Judge Marina Tavassi, IP Division, Court of Milan (IT)

Dr. Matthias Zigann, Presiding Judge, Munich Regional Court (DE)


Christof Augenstein, Kather Augenstein (DE)

Peter-Ulrik Plesner, Plesner – Copenhagen (DK)

Mark Van Gardingen, Brinkhof, Amsterdam (NL)

Annsley Merelle Ward, Bristows (UK)

Part 3 – Q&A


Alan Johnson, Bristows (UK)


Panel Session X – Copyright/Trademark – Unwrapping the European Trademark Reform Package
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 from 09.00 to 10.30

The new Trade Marks Directive (Directive 2015/2436) and the new Community Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation 2015/2424) came into force on 13 January and 23 March 2016 respectively. This Reform Package introduces the most substantial changes to EU trademark law since the introduction of the Community trademark, and aims to further harmonize the national trademark systems of the EU Member states.

This panel session will consider the major reforms in relation to some of the key issues wrapped within the package, such as the end of the requirement for graphic representation, the extension of some invalidity grounds previously reserved to shape marks (regarding, in short, the nature of the goods, essential value and functionality) to all trademarks, the new rules on goods in transit and the specification of goods and services covered by the EU trademark. Respectively, the panelists will explain the implications for registration of non-traditional trademarks; the potential impact on trademarks other than shape marks (also in view of the CJEU case law regarding the invalidity grounds at issue); the ability to seize infringing goods in transit through, but not meant for, the EU; and the way in which ”class headings” are now to be interpreted literally in determining the scope of trademark protection.

This is in the context of the question to be posed to this panel: what are the issues that are most likely to end up being considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union? The panelists will provide focused guidance on these and other key issues in the course of an interactive discussion to try to predict the issues with which the CJEU (and national courts) will be grappling as a result of this fundamental reform.

Access the presentations here



Bartosz Krakowiak, Polservice Patent & Trademark Attorneys (PL)


Luis Berenguer, Member of the Cabinet, Head of the Communication Service, EUIPO

Marco Ricolfi, Tosetto, Weigmann & Associates / Professor of IP Law, University of Turin (IT)

Jan Vleck, Reddie & Grose (UK)


Panel Session XI – Copyright/Trademark – Speaking freely about parody
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 from 11.00 to 12.30

Satires and parodies are intellectual creations that use an existing work for humour or mockery, for example critiquing or commenting upon a particular social phenomenon or issue.

In most EU Member States, there is an exception to copyright “for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche” and copyright protected works can be re-used without permission from the rightholders. The parody itself need not be an original work for the exception to be applicable. A satire or parody may also fall under the fair use defence against a claim of copyright infringement where such a defence exists, such as the United States. However, depending on the circumstances and degree of mockery, a satire or parody might also infringe moral rights and/or trademark rights.

Many countries accept that satires and parodies, especially those that embed some form of critique, are a form of expression falling within the ambit of freedom of expression, while nonetheless acknowledging the need to balance this with respect for the rights of copyright and trademark owners.

Any defence of permissible copying from a work will need to be decided on the facts in each case. Courts need to take into account not only the interests and rights of the right holder and the satirist/parodist, but also the rights of others, such as where the satire or parody communicates a discriminatory message. Illustrated by interesting examples, these issues will be explored by panelists from various jurisdictions.

Access the presentations here



Michael Edenborough, Serle Court (UK)


Mitsuko Miyagawa, TMI Associates (JP)

Dale Nelson, Vice-President, Senior Intellectual Property Counsel, Warner Bros. (US)

Graciela Pérez de Inzaurraga, Hausheer Belgrano & Fernandez (AR)