04.10.10

Patents Roundup: Fordham Conference for Software Patents in Europe, NZOSS Responds to Pro-Software Patents Lobbyists, and TurboHercules’ Ties With Microsoft Explained

Posted in Antitrust, Europe, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 4:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

TurboHercules

Summary: Lawyers’ event pushes for UPLS; New Zealand faces lawyers’ wrath (greed); TurboHercules has presence in Seattle, Washington

“UPLS and EU patent, or the 3rd attempt to legalise software patents in Europe, [are] on the program of the Fordham conference [PDF],” warns the president of the FFII. It seems like a lawyers-led conference seeking to maximise their own wealth at the expense of people who actually create things. UPLS is a disaster. We append the programme in text form at the bottom because we are likely to return to it later when we name culprits, such as lobbyists for software patents in Europe.

There is also heavy lobbying in New Zealand, attempting to reverse exclusion of software patents. Here is what NZOSS has to say:

Law firms that supported continued software patents have published critiques of the arguments put forward by those who opposed software patents and asked for an exclusion to be added to the Patent Bill. In this article Peter Harrison, vice President of the NZOSS responds.

It’s not over in New Zealand. Luckily, there are good people there who stand up for developers.

Some readers have confused our criticism of IBM with denial that TurboHercules is servicing Microsoft. This is rather surprising because we at Techrights were among the first to point out that TurboHercules was acting as a Microsoft shell. We wrote this about a month ago and discreetly received information that may validate it. In 5 more updates, Groklaw provides additional evidence that TurboHercules is connected to Microsoft, including the following article from last year:

TurboHercules is co-headquartered in Paris, France, where Bowler moved after he left the United Kingdom, and in Seattle, Washington, in close proximity to the one big software company that has in the past taken a shining to anything that gave Big Blue some grief, particularly with mainframes. (Yes, we mean Microsoft).

Our reader “Chips” shows us another article that says: “TurboHercules, a privately-held company set up in 2009, is a member of a non-profit trade group called the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which counts Microsoft and Oracle Corp as members, but not IBM.” IDG says that “TurboHercules’ move follows similar antitrust complaints with the European Commission from two other small IBM competitors, PSI and T3 Technologies. Microsoft, an arch-rival had a stake in PSI but the firm was subsequently bought out by IBM. Meanwhile, T3 ranks Microsoft among its shareholders. Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice opened an antitrust probe into IBM’s dominance of the mainframe market. That probe was sparked by a complaint from the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a trade group that ranks Microsoft among its members.”

We have already written several times about Microsoft’s connections with the Communications Industry Association [1, 2], in reference to T3 (which is partly owned by Microsoft).

“[N]otice that Turbohercules does really not say that they are not a pawn of Microsoft, they sort of dance around the issue.”
      –”Chips”
Just to clarify again, we never defended TurboHercules’ side. Its case is not related to the point that, regardless of context, IBM is using software patents to achieve a goal. We have said that TurboHercules is a malign party for a very long time, so none of us ever claimed otherwise. One could argue that TurboHercules tripped up or pulled a trick on IBM (the Microsoft boosters — including Microsoft’s MVP Miguel de Icaza who has just blocked his tweets from the public — then took the opportunity to bash IBM). Here is the “story thus far,” based on Linux Magazine. We do not necessarily agree with this analysis, but it is new. Roberto Galoppini, who is influential among Free/open source voices in Europe, also has a position on the subject.

“Chips” quotes TurboHercules’ head as saying: “IBM also accuses TurboHercules of cooperating with Microsoft. Bearing in mind that Hercules works very well indeed on both Linux and Windows, not to mention the Macintosh, we are indeed quite happy to cooperate with Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Unisys, Dell, Intel, AMD or anyone else who wants to work with us.”

He then argues: “notice that Turbohercules does really not say that they are not a pawn of Microsoft, they sort of dance around the issue.” For those who did not read our previous posts on the TurboHercules case, they are listed below in chronological order.

  1. Microsoft Proxy Attack on GNU/Linux Continues With TurboHercules
  2. Eye on Security: Windows Malware, Emergency Patches, and BeyondTrust’s CEO from Microsoft
  3. IBM Uses Software Patents Aggressively
  4. IBM’s Day of Shame
  5. IBM Will Never be the Same After Taking Software Patents Out of Its Holster
  6. Thumbs up to Ubuntu for Removing a Part of Microsoft; TurboHercules Likely a Psystar-Type Microsoft Shell
  7. Why IBM Does Deserve Scrutiny (Updated)

   Fordham Intellectual Property Law
                          Institute
            18th Annual Conference
  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW & POLICY
            www.fordhamipconference.com
     Fordham University School of Law
        Thursday and Friday, April 8-9, 2010
                    Hugh C. Hansen
                            Director
          Learn Debate Have Fun
______________________________________
             Wednesday, April 7th
                   Early Registration
              Fordham Law School Atrium
                     3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
   Reception & Dinner for Faculty and
                          Sponsors
        Lowenstein Building, 12th Floor
      Reception: 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.; Dinner: 7:00 p.m. to 9: 30 p.m.
                         Sponsored by
                          BASCAP
               CONFERENCE PROGRAM
                             Subject to Change
                     www.fordhamipconference.com
                     Program Updated on April 7, 2010
             Thursday Morning, April 8th
                       Fordham Law School
7:15 A.M. – 8:00 A.M.
      Registration and Continental Breakfast
Please note:
      Doors to the auditorium will close at 8:15 A.M.
      Registrants not yet seated will be escorted to overflow
      room, 203.
Welcoming Remarks
8:00 A.M. – 8:15 A.M.
      William M. Treanor
      Dean, Fordham University School of Law
      Prof. Hugh C. Hansen
      Director, Fordham IP Conference
SESSION 1: Plenary Session
(Thursday, 8:15 A.M. – 1:10 P.M.)
McNally Amphitheatre
Thursday Morning Plenary Sessions Moderator:
Prof. Hugh C. Hansen
       Fordham University School of Law
A. IP Policy and the Obama Administration
8:15 A.M. – 9:10 A.M.
Speakers:
David Kappos
       Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of U.S.
       Patent and Trademark Office, Wash. D. C.
       (up to 25-30 minutes)
Panelists:
Nicholas Groombridge
       Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York
Harold C. Wegner
       Foley & Lardner, Wash. D.C.
John Pegram
       Fish & Richardson P.C., New York
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speaker and audience discussion
(20 minutes)
B. IP Issues & Policy Positions of the European Commission
9:15 A.M. – 10:15 A.M.
Panelists:
Prof. Jeremy Phillips
       Director of Research, IP Institute (UK); Visiting Professorial Fellow, Queen
       Mary IP Research Institute
Dr. Tilman Lüder
       Head of Unit, DG Internal Market, Copyright and Knowledge-based
       Economy, European Commission, Brussels
Hon. Paul Maier
       President of the Boards of Appeal, OHIM, Alicante
 James Nurton
       Editor-in-chief, Managing Intellectual Property, London
Oliver Varhelyi
       Head of Unit, Industrial Property, DG Internal Market & Services, European
       Commission, Brussels
Thomas Vinje
       Clifford Chance, Brussels
Justin Watts
       Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, London
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
(50 minutes)
BREAK
10:15 A.M. – 10:40 A.M.
C. Multilateral, Plurilateral and Bilateral trade issues:
ACTA, WIPO, WTO, European Commission & USTR
10:40 A.M. – 12:05 P.M.
Speakers:
James Pooley
       Deputy Director General for Patents, WIPO, Switzerland
       (up to 12 minutes)
Antony Taubman
       Director, Intellectual Property Division, World Trade Organization, Geneva
       (up to 12 minutes)
Luc Devigne
       Head of Intellectual Property and Public Procurement, DG Trade, European
       Commission, Brussels
       (up to 12 minutes)
Stanford McCoy
       Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and Innovation,
       Washington D.C.
Recent Developments in U.S. Trade Policy on IP and Innovation
       (up to 12 minutes)
Panelists:
James Love
       Director, Knowledge Ecology International,Wash. D.C.
Hon. Don Weerawit Weeraworawit
       Deputy Secretary General, National Human Rights Commission, Thailand,
       Bangkok
Mihaly Ficsor
       President, Hungarian Copyright Council, Int’l Legal Consultant, Greenberg
       Traurig LLP
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the
panel discussion.)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(20 minutes)
D. Views from the Judiciary on IP in a Globalized World
12:10 P.M. – 1:10 P.M.
Panel Discussion
Panelists:
Dr. Klaus Grabinski
       Judge at the Federal Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court
       (Bundesgerichtshof), Karlsruhe
Lord Hoffmann
       Law Lord (ret.), House of Lords, Parliament, London
Hon. Rian Kalden
       Vice President, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands
Hon. Sylvie Mandel
       Judge, French Supreme Court
Hon. Pauline Newman
       U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington D.C.
Hon. Robert van Peursem
       Vice President, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands
Hon. Randall R. Rader
       U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington D.C.
Hon. Jed Rakoff
       U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Hon. Annabelle Bennett
       Judge, Federal Court of Australia, Sydney
Panel Discussion
(50 minutes)
LUNCH
1:10 P.M. – 2:30 P.M.
Location: Atrium
Overflow: Room 430 B&C
            Thursday Afternoon, April 8th
              THREE CONCURRENT SESSIONS:
               Copyright, Patent and Trademark Law
SESSION 2: COPYRIGHT LAW
Concurrent Session
(Thursday, 2:30 P.M. – 6:30 p.m.)
Amphitheatre
A. Developments in US Copyright Law
2:30 P.M. – 4:15 P.M.
Moderator:
Justin Hughes
       Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual
       Property, Professor of Law, Cardozo Law School
       (up to 5 minutes to introduce subject matter)
Speakers:
Thomas Kjelberg
       Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, New York
       (up to 15 minutes)
Salinger/Fairey, Golan and Cellco, et al: A Review & Analysis
Scott M. Martin
       Executive Vice President, Intellectual Property, Paramount Pictures, Viacom,
       Los Angeles
       (up to 10 minutes)
Reed Elsevier: Some Thoughts on Its Impact
David Carson
       General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, Wash. D.C.
       (up to 10 minutes)
The First Sale Doctrine: Case Law Developments
Prof. Ann Bartow
       University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbia, S.C.
       (up to 10 minutes)
Redefining Derivative Works: Some Thoughts on Achieving Clarity
and Consistency
       A discussion of inconsistencies in the ways that exclusive rights in derivative works
       are constructed and enforced by courts. Some seem to view “substantial similarity”
       and “unauthorized derivative works” as synonymous and interchangeable. Others
       treat the derivative works right as something copyright holders can deploy when a
       defendant work evokes or makes reference to another work but falls short of
       substantial similarity. Still others conflate derivative works rights with compilation
       copyrights.
Panelists:
 Marybeth Peters
       Register of Copyrights, Wash. D.C.
Michael Shapiro
       Senior Counsel, Office of Intellectual Property and Enforcement, U.S. Patent
       and Trademark Office
Prof. Mary W.S. Wong
       Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, N.H.
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(30 minutes)
BREAK
4:15 P.M. – 4:40 P.M.
B. Google Books Settlement: Review and Analysis
4:40 P.M. – 6:30 P.M.
Amphitheatre
Moderator:
Prof. Joel Reidenberg
       Director, Center on Law and Information Policy, Fordham Law School
       (up to 5 minutes to introduce subject matter)
Speakers:
Paul Aiken
       Executive Director, The Authors Guild, New York
       (up to 15 minutes including history of law suit)
Marybeth Peters
       Register of Copyrights, Wash. D.C.
       (up to 12 minutes)
Joseph Gratz
       Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco
       (up to 12 minutes)
(First discussion period -- 20 minutes)
Dr. Tilman Lüder
       Head of Unit, DG Internal Market, Copyright and Knowledge-based
       Economy, European Commission, Brussels
       (up to 12 minutes)
Responses and Repercussions of the Proposed Settlement in the EU
Dr. Mira T. Sundara Rajan,
       Faculty of Law, The University of British Columbia,
       Vancouver; Global Fellow, New York University School of Law
       (up to 12 minutes)
Google Books Settlement and Moral Rights: What Role Have They
Played? What Role Should They Play?
(second discussion period 20 minutes)
Panelists:
Sandra Aistars,
       Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Time Warner Inc., New
       York
Prof. F. Willem Grosheide
       Molengraaff Institute/Center for Intellectual Property Law, University of
       Utrecht
Howard Knopf
       Macera & Jarzyna, LLP, Ottawa
Tom Rubin
       Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property Strategy, Microsoft
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
                                  RECEPTION
                                 10 on the Park
                             6:30 P.M. – 8:30 P.M.
                                 Sponsored by
    Freshfields, Bruckhaus Deringer LLP
SESSION 3: PATENT LAW/IP ENFORCEMENT
Concurrent Session
(Thursday, 2:30 P.M. – 6:30 P.M.)
Room 204
A. Written Descriptions; Enablement, Industrial
Applicability
2:30 P.M. – 3:30 P.M.
Moderator:
John White
       Cooper & Dunham LLP, New York
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Lord Hoffmann
       Law Lord (ret.), House of Lords, Parliament, London
       (up to 10 minutes)
Acertaining the Likelihood of industrial application/ utility: Who
Has It Right?
Steven Lee
       Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
       (up to 10 minutes)
Justin Watts
       Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, London
       (up to 10 minutes)
Asymmetry in disclosure requirements: sufficient descriptions/
inadequate prior art.
       Patentees frequently describe their inventions loosely,
       incorrectly, and unscientifically (which might be inevitable when
       attempting to describe something new). Because the burden is
       on the challenger to prove inadequacy, and an examiner looking
       only on paper has allowed the patent through, sufficiency
       challenges on bad science are very difficult to mount. The
       difficulties are especially acute when it comes to constructing
       experimental evidence to demonstrate the workability of a bad
       patent invention. This creates an asymmetry in the patent
       system in which rights can be established on the basis of
       disclosures that would not be held to anticipate.
Panelists:
Prof. Martin Adelman
       George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C.
Shimako Kato
       Abe, Ikubo & Katayam, Tokyo
David Perkins
       Arnold & Porter, London
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(20 minutes)
B. IP Enforcement in China
3:35 P.M. – 4:30 P.M.
Moderator:
Daryl Lim
       Microsoft Teaching and Research Fellow, Intellectual Property Law Institute,
       Fordham University School of Law
       (up to 5 minutes to introduce subject matter)
Speakers:
Louise Pentland
       Senior Vice President & Chief Legal Officer, Nokia Corporation, Helsinki
       (up to 13 minutes)
IP Enforcement in China
       China is a very exciting marketplace, not least in the area of IP. Success
       depends upon understanding how to navigate the enforcement environment.
       Nokia, as a European Headquartered Company operating extensively in
       China, has developed best practices with regard to IP including trademark
       protection, design right protection, anti-counterfeit action, patent protection
       and litigation. These will be shared in this talk along with recent legal
       developments. A first principal: leave your western expectations behind if
       you want to succeed.
Prof. Peter K. Yu
       Drake University Law School, Des Moines, IA
       (up to 13 minutes)
 Intellectual Property Enforcement in China: WTO and Beyond
       An update on US-China WTO dispute and challenges in enforcing
       intellectual property rights in China.
Panelists:
Jennifer Choe Groves
       Hughes Hubbard & Reed, Wash. D.C.
Prof. Haochen Sun
       University of Hong Kong
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(20 minutes)
BREAK
4:30 P.M. – 4:50 P.M.
C. The EU Patent Agenda
4:50 P.M. – 5:35 P.M.
Moderator:
David Perkins
       Arnold & Porter, London
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speaker:
Oliver Varhelyi
       Head of Unit, Industrial Property, DG Internal Market & Services, European
       Commission, Brussels
       (up to 15 minutes)
Panelists:
Prof. Johanna Gibson
       Director, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of
       London
Hon. Robert van Peursem
       Vice President, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands
Justin Watts
       Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, London
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(20 minutes)
D. U.S. Patent Law Developments
5:40 P.M. – 6:40 P.M.
Moderator:
Prof. Martin Adelman
       George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C.
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speaker:
Dimitrios Drivas
       White & Case, New York
       (up to 25 minutes)
Panelists:
Hon. Randall R. Rader
       U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Wash. D.C.
Prof. Clarisa Long
       Columbia Law School, New York
Brian Murphy
       Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Prof. John R. Thomas
       Georgetown University School of Law, Wash. D.C.
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(25 minutes)
                                  RECEPTION
                                10 on the Park
                             6:30 P.M. – 8:30 P.M.
                                 Sponsored by
    Freshfields, Bruckhaus Deringer LLP
SESSION 4: TRADEMARK LAW
Concurrent Session
(Thursday, 2:30 P.M. – 6:00 P.M.)
Room 203
A. Developments in EU Trademark and Design Law
2:30 P.M. – 4:00P.M.
Moderator:
James Nurton
       Editor-in-chief, Managing Intellectual Property, London
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Oliver Varhelyi
       Head of Unit, Industrial Property, DG Internal Market & Services, European
       Commission, Brussels
       (up to 15 minutes)
The Commission’s Perspective
Hon. Paul Maier
       President of the Boards of Appeal, OHIM, Alicante
Genuine use in one Members State: the Controversy
       (up to 10 minutes)
Hon. Harri Salmi
       Member, Boards of Appeal, OHIM, Alicante
       (up to 10 minutes)
Overlap of EU Community Design and Trade Mark Protection:
Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v. OHIM (EU General Court, 18
March 10)
Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck
       Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Düsseldorf
       (up to 10 minutes)
Comparative advertising - more questions than answers: What is
the practical impact of the ECJ judgments in O2 and L'Oreal v.
Bellure.
Prof. Spyros Maniatis
       Director, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of
       London
       (up to 10 minutes)
Lego and Functionality in Europe
Lego, the most recent challenge to the strict principles established in Philips, is not
only important to clarify the doctrine but also because functionality influences the
interpretation of provisions dealing with other aspects of registrability.
Panelist
Prof. David Llewelyn
       King’s College London; External Director, IP Academy, Singapore
Panelist, speakers and audience discussion
(30 minutes)
BREAK
4:00 P.M. – 4:25 P.M.
Room 203
B. Developments in U.S. Trademark Law
4:25 P.M. – 5:50 P.M.
Moderator:
Norman Zivin
       Cooper & Dunham LLP, New York
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Prof. Marshall Leaffer
       Indiana University, Bloomington
A Review of Trademark Developments
       (up to 15 minutes)
Lynne Beresford
       Commissioner for Trademarks, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Wash. D.C.
       (up to 10 minutes)
Bose: The USPTO’s Perspective
Mark V.B. Partridge
       Partridge IP Law, Chicago
       (up to 10 minutes)
Prof. Ann Bartow,
      University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbia, S.C.
      (up to 10 minutes)
Dilution Protection: Where are We? Where Should We Be?
Panelist:
Daniel Schloss
      Greenberg Traurig, New York
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(25 minutes)
                                 RECEPTION
                                10 on the Park
                            6:30 P.M. – 8:30 P.M.
                                Sponsored by
    Freshfields, Bruckhaus Deringer LLP
                Friday Morning, April 9th
                         Fordham Law School
7:30 A.M. Continental Breakfast
Sunrise Seminars
These sessions stress the “seminar” part of the name, with
interchanges among speaker, panelists and those attending
the seminar after a short introductory talk.
A. Green Patents: Gimmick or Answer?
7:30 A.M. – 8:40 A.M.
Room 203
Moderator:
Charles M. Fish
      Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York
      (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Carl Horton
      Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, General Electric
      (up to 10 minutes)
Prof. Johanna Gibson
      Director, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of
      London
      (up to 5 minutes)
Arti Rai
      Administrator for External Affairs, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
      Wash. D.C.
      (up to 5 minutes)
Stuart Graham
      Chief Economist, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Wash. D.C.
      (up to 5 minutes)
Jason Albert
      Associate General Counsel and Chief of Staff, Intellectual Property and
      Licensing Group, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
      (up to 5 minutes)
Leonora Hoicka
      Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property Law, IBM Corp.
      (up to 5 minutes)
      Discussion: 25 minutes
B. Governmental IP Policy: By Whom & How Is It Made?
7:30 a.m. to 8:25 a.m.
Room 204
Moderator:
Prof. Hugh C. Hansen
      Fordham University School of Law, New York
Panelists:
Mihaly Ficsor,
      President, Hungarian Copyright Council and International
      Legal Consultant, Greenberg Traurig LLP
Prof. Anne Fitzgerald
      Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Prof. Justin Hughes
      Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property;
      Professor of Law, Cardozo Law School
James Love
      Director, Knowledge Ecology International,Wash. D.C.
Dr. Tilman Lüder
      Head of Unit, DG Internal Market, Copyright and Knowledge-based
      Economy, European Commission, Brussels
Stanford McCoy
       Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and Innovation,
       Washington D.C.
Ralph Oman
       Pravel, Hewitt, Kimball & Krieger Professorial Lecturer in Intellectual
       Property and Patent Law, George Washington School of Law, Wash. D.C.
Antony Taubman
       Director, Intellectual Property Division, World Trade Organization, Geneva
(Discussion: 50 minutes)
                     Three Concurrent Sessions
               Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law
SESSION 5: PATENT LAW
Concurrent Session
(Friday, 8:40 A.M. – 1:10 P.M.)
Room 203
A.Supplementary Protection Certificates
       Patent term extension in the EU for medicinal and plant protection
       products by means of Supplementary Protection Certificates
8:40 A.M. – 9:30 A.M.
Moderator:
Prof. John R. Thomas
       Georgetown University School of Law, Wash. D.C.
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Prof. John R. Thomas
       Georgetown University School of Law, Wash. D.C.
       (up to 10 minutes)
Hon. Rian Kalden
       Vice President, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands
       (up to 10 minutes)
Trevor Cook
       Bird & Bird, London
       (up to 10 minutes)
SPC Regime: Questions and Concerns 20 Years Later
              Although the SPC patent extension regime has been in existence
              for nearly 20 years, it is attracting an ever increasing amount of
              litigation, much of which puts into question whether it is
              achieving its original aims. This includes issues such as what can
              constitute a basic patent for an SPC, especially for a combination
              product, and what is the first marketing authorization in the EU
              for the purposes of establishing SPC eligibility and term?
              Moreover the recent introduction of pediatric extensions for
              SPCs has already occasioned yet further controversies, such as
              whether one can secure an SPC for a negative term so as to be
              able to benefit subsequently from a pediatric extension.
Panelist:
Prof. Martin Adelman
       George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C.
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(15 minutes)
B. Developments in Japanese Patent Law
9:35 A.M. – 10:40 A.M.
Room 203
Moderator:
John Pegram
       Fish & Richardson P.C., New York
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Hon. Tamotsu Shouji
       High Court of Japan, IP Division, Tokyo
       (up to 12 minutes)
The "Dual-Track" System in Japan: Will conflict result from
Invalidity Decisions being made in both the JPO and the Courts?
Prof. Kazuo Makino
       Omiya Law School, Tokyo
       (up to 12 minutes)
Shimako Kato
       Abe, Ikubo & Katayam, Tokyo
       (up to 12 minutes)
Developments in Description Requirement in Japan
Panelists:
Patricia Martone
       Ropes & Gray, New York
Harold C. Wegner
       Foley & Lardner, Wash. D.C.
Tatsuo Takeshige
       Deputy Director, Japan Patent Office, Tokyo
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
 (20 minutes)
BREAK
10:40 A.M. – 11:00 A.M.
C. Views from EPO, JPO, and USPTO; IP5 Group
Worksharing
11:00 A.M. – 12:05 P.M.
Room 203
Moderator:
John Richards
       Ladas & Parry
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Tatsuo Takeshige
       Deputy Director, Japan Patent Office, Tokyo
       (up to 11 minutes)
Arti Rai
       Administrator for External Affairs, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
       Wash. D.C.
       (up to 11 minutes)
Eugen Stohr
       Director for International Legal Affairs, European Patent Office, Munich
       (up to 11 minutes)
Panelists:
John Pegram
       Fish & Richardson P.C., New York
James Pooley
       Deputy Director General for Patents, WIPO, Switzerland
Richard Wilder
       Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property Policy, Microsoft
       Corporation, Redmond, WA
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
       (20 minutes)
D. Injunctions
12:10 P.M.. – 1:10 P.M.
Room 203
Moderator:
David Perkins
       Arnold & Porter, London
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Rutger Kleemans
       Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Amsterdam
       (up to 10 minutes)
Descriptive Seizures and Corporate Privacy: A Need for Regulation
of seizures and a Broader Duty to Disclose.
       A descriptive seizure and in particular electronic seizures that
       skim entire servers, are a major breach of corporate privacy.
       The pressure seizures put on a defendant where good court
       supervision is lacking (which is often the case) seems to provide
       for broader discovery than appropriate. Descriptive seizure
       issues and breach of confidential information in this context
       occur much more frequently in civil law jurisdictions (France,
       Belgium where the saisie descriptive originated) and recently
       Germany and the Netherlands than in the UK and common law
       countries.
Michael Sandonato
       Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, New York
       (up to 10 minutes)
Christian Harmsen
       Bird & Bird LLP, Düsseldorf
       (up to 10 minutes)
Territorial scope of national injunctions in the globalized market
Panelists:
John Golden
       University of Texas School of Law
John Kenneth Felter
       Ropes & Gray, Boston
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(20 minutes)
LUNCH
Atrium and room 430
1:10 P.M. – 2:30 P.M.
                               Luncheon Speaker
                               Victoria Espinel
                   Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
                                  The White House
                                 (up to 15 minutes)
                                    (in Atrium)
SESSION 6: STANDARDS
Concurrent Session
(Friday, 8:30 A.M. – 10:10 A.M.)
Room 204
Moderator:
Carey Ramos
       Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Fabian Gonnell
       Senior Director, Legal Counsel, Qualcomm Technology Licensing, Qualcomm,
       Inc., San Diego, CA
Patricia Martone
       Ropes & Gray, New York
       (up to 10 minutes)
Giovanni Casucci
       Casucci Studio Legale, Milan
       (up to 10 minutes)
Myles Jelf
       Bristows, London
FRAND obligations: consequences and opportunities for national
patent courts
       National patent courts are now the main forum in which FRAND issues are
       adjudicated (the European Commission having declined to take up the
       Qualcomm complaint, saying “Such assessments [about the pricing of
       technology after its adoption as part of an industry standard] may be very
       complex, and any antitrust enforcer has to be careful about overturning
       commercial agreements”. How do national courts, however, procedurally
       achieve fairness between the interests of patentees in obtaining a fair reward
       for innovation, and the risk to defendants who are locked in to using
       standardised technology? Do the judgments of individual courts in relation
       to FRAND rates for individual patents risk having disproportionate – and
       potentially even market-distorting – effects for other market players in other
       jurisdictions around the world? Are, in fact, the conflicts between what is
       procedurally fair to each party so difficult to resolve that FRAND risks
       becoming virtually unjusticiable?
       (up to 10 minutes)
John Temple Lang
       Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP, Brussels
       (up to 10 minutes)
Carey Ramos
       Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York
Substance or Form? Antitrust implications of conducting joint
format development as an SDO or a JV.
       (up to 10 minutes)
Cecilio Madero Villarejo
       Director, Directorate C, Market Cases II, Information, Communication and
       Media, Directorate General for Competition, Brussels
       (up to 10 minutes)
Speakers and audience discussion
       (25 minutes)
BREAK
10:10 A.M. – 10:30 A.M.
SESSION 7: ANTITRUST/COMPETITION LAW
Concurrent Session
(Friday, 10:30 A.M. – 1:10 P.M.)
Room 204
A. Global Competition Law and Policy
10:30 A.M. – 11:50 P.M.
Moderator:
Prof Hugh C. Hansen
      Fordham University School of Law
Speakers:
Cecilio Madero Villarejo
      Director, Directorate C, Market Cases II, Information, Communication and
      Media, Directorate General for Competition, Brussels
      (up to 15 minutes)
Daryl Lim
      Microsoft Teaching and Research Fellow, Intellectual Property Law Institute,
       Fordham University School of Law
       (up to 15 minutes)
The IP/Competition Interface and Asia: Critical Directions?
Panelists:
Prof. Eleanor Fox,
      New York University School of Law
Barry Hawk
      Director, Competition Law Institute, Fordham University School of Law
Carey Ramos
      Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York
Thomas Vinje
      Clifford Chance, Brussels
 (Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
SESSION 7A: COPYRIGHT LAW
Concurrent Session
Room 204
Fair Use; Exceptions
11:55 P.M. – 1:10 P.M.
Moderator:
Mary Rasenberger
        Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Prof. Jeremy Phillips
       Director Of Research, IP Institute (UK); Visiting Professorial Fellow, Queen
       Mary IP Research Institute, IP Consultant, Olswang
       (up to 12 minutes)
 The public domain: time for a health-check.
       The public domain is a vast body of content from which many copyright-
       protected works are drawn and to which, at least in theory, all such works
       eventually migrate. How is the public domain faring these days? Is it an
       infinitely renewable resource, or are its limits being tested by predatory
       principles of copyright and other intellectual property rights?
William Patry
       Senior Copyright Counsel, Google
       (up to 12 minutes)
Mihaly Ficsor
       President, Hungarian Copyright Council, Int’l Legal Consultant, Greenberg
       Traurig LLP
       (up to 12 minutes)
Does Copyright Law Need New Exceptions?
Panelists:
David Carson
       General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, Wash. D.C.
Dr. Tilman Lüder
       Head of Unit, DG Internal Market, Copyright and Knowledge-based
       Economy, European Commission, Brussels
Prof. Haochen Sun
       University of Hong Kong
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(25 minutes)
LUNCH
Atrium, room 430
1:10 P.M. – 2:30 P.M.
                              Luncheon Speaker
                              Victoria Espinel
                   Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
                                  The White House
                                (up to 15 minutes)
                                      (Atrium)
SESSION 8: TRADE/ENFORCEMENT LAW
Concurrent Session
(Friday, 8:30 A.M. – 1:10 P.M.)
Amphitheatre
A. Trade/Copyright: IP Trade Policy; WIPO Treaty for the
Blind
8:30 A.M. – 9:55 A.M.
Moderator:
Coenraad Visser
       University of South Africa, Pretoria
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
James Pooley
       Deputy Director General for Patents, World Intellectual Property
       Organization, Geneva
       (up to 10 minutes)
James Love
       Director, Knowledge Ecology International,Wash. D.C.
       (up to 8 minutes)
Prof. Silke von Lewinski
       Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law,
       Munich; Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, N.H.
       (up to 8 minutes)
Hon. Weerawit Weeraworawit
       Deputy Secretary General, National Human Rights Commission, Thailand,
       Bangkok
       (up to 8 minutes)
Michele Woods
       Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office,
       Wash. D.C.
       (up to 8 minutes)
Discussion 25 minutes
BREAK
9:55 A.M. – 10:20 A.M.
B. Enforcement Issues, including ACTA/301
10:20 A.M. – 11:50 P.M.
Moderator:
Michael Schlesinger
       Greenberg Traurig, Washington, D.C.
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Alvydas Stancikas
       Head of Unit, Enforcement of IPR, DG Internal Market, European
       Commission, Brussels
       (up to 15 minutes)
The Commission's Internal Market initiatives for Fighting
Counterfeiting and Piracy
        A review of the Commission’s fresh range of internal market initiatives over
       the last two years, including its work on the Enforcement Directive, creation
       of the European Counterfeiting and Piracy Observatory and development of
       administrative cooperation.
Christopher Stothers
       Arnold & Porter, London
       (up to 8 minutes)
Nokia and in-transit border controls
Susy Frankel
       Victoria University, New Zealand
Cross Retaliation in TRIPS: New Solutions or Problems?
       (up to 8 minutes)
Stanford McCoy
       Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and Innovation,
       Wash. D.C.
       (up to 8 minutes)
Peter Fowler
       Senior Counsel for Enforcement, Office of Intellectual Property Policy &
       Enforcement, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Wash., D.C.
       (up to 8 minutes)
Game-Changers in the Enforcement Environment: Five Things
Countries Can Do To Enhance Their Enforcement Regimes
Panelists:
James Love
       Director, Knowledge Ecology International,Wash. D.C.
Tod Cohen
       VP & Deputy General Counsel, Global Gov't Relations, Regulatory, Asset
       Protection, eBay Inc., San Jose
Antony Taubman
       Director, Intellectual Property Division, World Trade Organization, Geneva
Prof. Peter K. Yu
       Drake University Law School, Des Moines
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(25 minutes)
C. Parallel Imports & IP Law
11:55 A.M. – 1:10 P.M.
Moderator:
Anne Nielsen
       Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
        New York
       (up to 5 minutes to introduce subject matter)
Speakers:
Giovanni Casucci
       Casucci Studio Legale, Milan
       (up to 10 minutes)
John Temple Lang
       Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP, Brussels
       (up to 10 minutes)
Prof. Kazuo Makino
       Omiya Law School, Tokyo
       (up to 10 minutes)
Parallel Imports: Recent Developments in Japan
Michael Schlesinger
       Greenberg Traurig, Washington, D.C.
       (up to 10 minutes)
Panelists:
Peter Fowler
       Senior Counsel for Enforcement, Office of Intellectual Property Policy &
       Enforcement, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Wash., D.C.
Howard Knopf
       Macera & Jarzyna, LLP, Ottawa
Christopher Stothers
       Arnold & Porter, London
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(25 minutes)
LUNCH
Atrium, room 430
1:10 P.M. – 2:30 P.M.
                             Luncheon Speaker
                             Victoria Espinel
                  Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
                                  The White House
                                (up to 15 minutes)
                                     (Atrium)
                Friday Afternoon, April 9th
                  Three Concurrent Sessions
      Patent Law; Copyright Law; Trademark Law
SESSION 9: PATENT LAW
Concurrent Session
(Friday, 2:30 P.M. – 6:30 P.M.)
Amphitheatre
A. Damages and Reasonable Royalties
2:30 A.M. – 3:45 P.M.
Moderator:
Gonzalo Ulloa
       Gomez-Acebo & Pombo, Madrid
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Hon. Randall R. Rader
       U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington D.C.
       (up to 9 minutes)
Prof. John Golden
       University of Texas School of Law
The U.S. Damages Debate: Recent developments and Proposed Guidelines
       (up to 7 minutes)
Dr. Klaus Grabinski,
        Judge at the Federal Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court
       (Bundesgerichtshof), Karlsruhe
        (up to 9 minutes)
Dr. Frank-Erich Hufnagel
       Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Dusseldorf
       (up to 7 minutes)
Johann Pitz
       Vossius & Partner, Munich
       (up to 7 minutes)
Steven Schwartz,
       Senior Vice President, NERA, White Plains, New York
       (up to 7 minutes)
Panelist:
Herbert F. Schwartz
       Retired partner, Ropes & Gray LLP
Panelist, speakers and audience discussion
(20 minutes)
BREAK
3:45 P.M. – 4:05 P.M.
B. Patent Eligible Subject Matter
4:05 P.M. – 5:25 P.M.
Amphitheatre
Moderator:
Prof. Jeanne Fromer
       Fordham University School of Law, New York
       (up to 5 minutes introducing subject matter)
Speakers:
Prof. Rochelle Dreyfuss
       New York University School of Law
       (up to 10 minutes)
The Patentability of Genetic Diagnostics
       In the run-up to Bilski v. Kappos, Justice Breyer cast doubt on the
       patentability of methods of diagnosis, see Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v.
       Metabolite Labs., Inc. Lab Corp., 548 U.S. 124 (2006)(dissenting from
       dismissal of certiorari as improvidently granted). The problem Breyer
       identified--the possibility that diagnostics express rules of nature--is
       especially prevalent in the case of genetic diagnostics. These methods rely on
       gene sequences, and these sequences are currently themselves subject to
       challenge, see Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO, 669 F.Supp. 3
       65 (SDNY 2009). While gene patents are clearly important to spur research
       into gene therapies, the case for gene diagnostics is much weaker. Yet
       patents on genetic diagnostics can interfere significantly with patient care.
       This talk will discuss options for dealing with these patents, including the
       proposals suggested by the Secretary of Heath &Human Services' Advisory
       Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, see

http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/SACGHS/SACGHS%20Patents%20Report%20Ap

       proved%202-5-20010.pdf
Prof. Dan Ravicher
       Executive Director, Public Patent Foundation; Lecturer in Law, Intellectual
       Property Law Program, Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School, New York
       (up to 10 minutes)
Ass’n for Molecular Pathology: What Lies Ahead?
William Chandler
       Member, Board of Appeal, European Patent Office, Munich
What the EPO referral G3/08 might tell us
       (up to 10 minutes)
Hon. Pauline Newman
       U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Wash. D.C.
Some Thoughts on Current Issues
       (up to 10 minutes)
Panelists:
 Nicholas Groombridge,
       Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York
Lord Hoffman
       Law Lord, House of Lords, Parliament, London
David W. Jones
       Senior Attorney, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(25 minutes)
C. Obviousness/Inventive Step: Comparative View
5:30 P.M. – 6:40 P.M.
Amphitheatre
Moderator:
Prof. Ron Lazebnik
       Fordham University School of Law, New York
       (up to 5 minute introduction of subject matter)
Speakers:
John Richards
       Ladas & Parry, New York
       (up to 12 minutes)
A Comparative Overview
William Chandler
       (up to 9 minutes)
       Member, Board of Appeal, European Patent Office, Munich
What the EPO referral G3/08 will probably not tell us
Brian Cordery
       Bristows, London
       (up to 9 minutes)
Inventive Step – Out of Step? Is European Harmonisation A Reality?
       Are English Patents Courts in Sync with other EU national courts and the
       EPO? In relation to inventive step, Lord Justice Jacob observed in Generics
       UK v Daiichi (July 2009) that “Some have suggested that
       Pozzoli/Windsurfing is different from the EPO’s problem/solution approach.
       It is not.” But is this borne out in the cases?”
Hon. Robert van Peursem
       Vice President, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands
       (up to 9 minutes)
Is there a European approach to inventive step by the EPO and
national judges? A Dutch Perspective
       Structured approaches assessing obviousness in EPO, NL, UK and
       Germany do not differ principally but some differences remain.
Panelists:
Hon. Annabelle Bennett
       Judge, Federal Court of Australia, Sydney
Robert J. Goldman
       Ropes & Gray, Palo Alto, CA
Dr. Klaus Grabinski,
       Judge at the Federal Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court
       (Bundesgerichtshof), Karlsruhe
Hon. Randall R. Rader
       U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Wash. D.C.
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(25 minutes)
                                  RECEPTION
                           Fordham Law Atrium
                             6:30 P.M. – 8:30 P.M.
                                 Sponsored by
                                  Bristows
SESSION 10: COPYRIGHT LAW
Concurrent Session
(Friday, 2:30 P.M. – 6:30 P.M.)
Room 203
A. Developments in EU Copyright Law
2:30 P.M. – 3:50 P.M.
Moderator:
Dr. Tilman Lüder
       Head of Unit, DG Internal Market, Copyright and Knowledge-based
       Economy, European Commission, Brussels
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Prof. F. Willem Grosheide
       Molengraaff Institute/Center for Intellectual Property Law, University of
       Utrecht
       (up to 10 minutes)
The ECJ Infopaq-decision
Tom Rivers
       Copyright and Media Consultant, London
       (up to 10 minutes)
Monika Tomczak
       Miller Canfield, Warsaw
Online licensing of creative content - is there a way to close the
transnational gap across the EU?
               Consumers in various parts of the EU are prevented from legally
               purchasing creative content from sites operating in other
               Member States due to the various obstacles. A look at the efforts
               of the European Commission to provide an efficient platform for
               online licensing across the EU, the views of stakeholders and
               collective management societies and the current practice
               of licensing online music.
Tim Frain
       Director of Intellectual Property Rights, Regulatory Affairs, Nokia Corporation,
       Helsinki
       (up to 10 minutes)
Panelists:
Trevor Cook
       Bird & Bird, London
John Temple Lang
       Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP, Brussels
Prof. Silke von Lewinski
       Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law,
       Munich; Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, N.H.
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(30 minutes)
BREAK
3:50 P.M. – 4:15 P.M.
B. Secondary Liability
4:15 P.M. – 5:30 P.M.
Room 203
Moderator:
Morton David Goldberg
       Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, New York
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Howard Knopf
       Macera & Jarzyna, LLP, Ottawa
       (up to 13 minutes)
Dr. Stanley Lai
       Allen & Gledhill, Singapore
       The perspectives in Singapore and Asia
       (departure due to emergency)
Stanley Pierre-Louis
       Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property &
       Content Protection, Viacom, New York
       (up to 13 minutes)
Ted M. Shapiro
       Deputy Managing Director, Vice President & General Counsel, MPA, Brussels
       (up to 13 minutes)
Panelists:
Prof. Kazuo Makino
       Omiya Law School, Tokyo
Alain Strowel
       Covington & Burling, LLP, Brussels
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(25 minutes)
C. Worldwide Developments in ISP Participation
5:35 P.M. – 6:30 P.M.
Room 203
Moderator:
Morton David Goldberg
       Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, New York
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Prof. Valerie-Laure Benabou
       University of Versailles, Visiting Professor, McGill University and University
       of Montreal
       (up to 13 minutes)
Shira Perlmutter
       Executive Vice President, Global Legal Policy, IFPI, London
       (up to 13 minutes)
The Evolution of A Graduated Response Approach to Illegal File-
Sharing
Panelists:
Susy Frankel
       Victoria University, New Zealand
Ted M. Shapiro
       Deputy Managing Director, Vice President & General Counsel, MPA, Brussels
Mihaly Ficsor
       President, Hungarian Copyright Council and International Legal Consultant,
       Greenberg Traurig, LLP
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(20 minutes)
                                 RECEPTION
                            Fordham Law Atrium
                             6:30 P.M. – 8:30 P.M.
                                Sponsored by
                                 Bristows
SESSION 12: TRADEMARK LAW
Concurrent Session
(Friday, 2:30 P.M. – 6:30 P.M.)
Room 204
A. Protection of Premium Products
2:30 P.M. – 3:40 P.M.
Moderator:
Prof. Susan Scafidi
       Brooklyn Law School, New York
       (up to 5 minutes)
Speakers:
Monika Tomczak
       Miller Canfield, Warsaw
Brick&Mortar v. Virtual Shopper Paradise – a Review of the EU
Vertical Restraints Regime in the Context of Online Sales
       The regime for vertical restraints is due to be revamped in the
       EU with a new proposed regulation on the exemption of vertical
       restraints. What is the current regime, the projected change and
       when will it occur? The new regime is particularly important for
       premium and luxury brand products because of the nature of
       their distribution channels.
       (up to 10 minutes)
Dr. Joseph Fesenmair
       Bird & Bird, Munich
       (up to 10 minutes)
Prof. Marshall Leaffer
       Indiana University, Bloomington
       (up to 10 minutes)
Dr. Peter Ruess
       Professor of Law, International School of Management, Frankfurt
Better premium product protection after ECJ’s Dior decision?
       Is sale of a premium product in discount channels a violation of trademark
       law? A new and widely discussed ECJ decision seems to hold some benefits in
       store for licensors.
       (up to 10 minutes)
Panelists:
Prof. Ann Bartow
       University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbia, S.C.
Prof. David Llewelyn
       King’s College London, External Director, IP Academy, Singapore
Hon. Paul Maier
       President of the Boards of Appeal, OHIM, Alicante
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(20 minutes)
BREAK
3:40 P.M. – 4:05 P.M.
B. Geographic Terms, Including Geographical Indications
4:05 P.M. – 5:00 P.M.
Moderator:
Coenraad Visser
       University of South Africa, Pretoria
Speakers:
Hon. Annabelle Bennett
       Judge, Federal Court of Australia, Sydney
Prof. Justin Hughes
       Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property;
       Professor of Law, Cardozo Law School
Dr. G.E. Evans
       Queen Mary, University of London, Centre for Commercial Law Studies
Comparative Advantages of GIs and Trademarks in the Marketing
of Agricultural Products in the EU
Panelist:
Mark V.B. Partridge
       Partridge IP Law, Chicago
Hon. Harri Salmi
       Member, Boards of Appeal, OHIM, Alicante
(Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
C. Trademark Use, Including Search Words: Comparative
View
5:05 P.M. to 6:30 P.M.
Moderator:
Prof. Jeremy Phillips
       Director of Research, IP Institute (UK); Visiting Professorial Fellow, Queen
       Mary IP Research Institute
Speakers:
Prof. Jeremy Phillips
       Director of Research, IP Institute (UK); Visiting Professorial Fellow, Queen
       Mary IP Research Institute
       (up to 12 minutes)
An Overview of “Use” Issues in Trade Mark law
Alain Strowel
       Covington & Burling, LLP, Brussels
       (up to 10 minutes)
Mark V.B. Partridge
       Partridge IP Law, Chicago
       (up to 10 minutes)
Prof. Peter Ruess
       Professor of Law, International School of Management, Frankfurt
       (up to 10 minutes)
Use and Misuse of trademarks in cyberspace
       From eBay to Google, including the very recent ECJ decision on Adwords,
       cyberspace seems to have its own rules. What are they and the trends in the
       online world?
Hon. Sylvie Mandel
       Judge, French Supreme Court
Genuine Use of Marks: on the Internet; as Registered
       (up to 10 minutes)
Panelist:
Edward Vassallo, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, New York
 (Panelists have no individual time allocated; they take part in the panel
discussion)
Panel, speakers and audience discussion
(25 minutes)
                                  RECEPTION
                           Fordham Law Atrium
                             6:30 P.M. – 8:30 P.M.
                                 Sponsored by
                                 Bristows
                           See you next year!
                             April 28-29, 2011

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Links 24/11/2020: Linux 5.9.11, Istio 1.6.14 and LibreOffice 7.1 Beta Released

    Links for the day



  2. Lots of Good News Today

    A quick roundup of news and key developments; most of them are positive and they give us hope



  3. Massive Collective Action Begins at the European Patent Office Today, Demanding Change and Forewarning the Management (Litigation)

    The financial "hoax" at the EPO (taking away money from staff to feed a gambling addiction of managers) needs to stop; staff has begun mass-mailing the management, threatening legal action



  4. EPO Management is Still Distracting From the 'Elephant in the Room' by Corrupting Media and Academia

    Under the EPO's dictatorship the law is being routinely violated; in order for the public to not pay attention or receive mixed messages (resulting in confusion) the EPO is manufacturing so-called 'studies' (which patent offices aren't supposed to do; they should focus on patent-granting while complying with the law)



  5. EPO's Central Staff Committee on Latest Meeting With Office Dictator: “No Meaningful Discussion Could Take Place.”

    Whilst allegedly preparing legal action the staff representatives at the EPO report on the lack of progress after so-called 'dialogues' (merely a false impression of consultation)



  6. Growing Concerns That EPO Staff Has Been Placed Under de Facto House Arrest by an Entirely Unaccountable Office

    "House arrest" is excessive and disproportionate. So says the Central Staff Committee of Europe's second-largest institution (which surprisingly enough the media is failing to properly study and investigate) as it highlights yet more human rights violations.



  7. IRC Proceedings: Monday, November 23, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, November 23, 2020



  8. Internal Error: Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent Incompatible With the Constitution and Basic Laws

    The FFII has issued a statement for Members of the Bundestag, Members of the European Parliament, Members of the Council, German Presidency of the EU, Chancellor Merkel, Commissioner Von Der Leyen, Commissioner Reynders, and Battistelli's buddy Breton



  9. The EPO is Using Hype Wave and Buzzword to Promote Illegal Software Patents in a So-Called “Digital Conference”

    The "HEY HI" or "AI" hype is misused by the Office; not just in person but also in webstreams, which basically serve as a vehicle for illegal agenda



  10. Dutch Delegation and German Delegation at the Administrative Council of the EPO Upset at the Office for Secrecy, Working Behind the Scenes to Crush Productive Staff

    Less than halfway through his term at the Office, Battistelli's buddy already faces growing criticism and, according to the Central Staff Committee, he "was emotionally affected by the intervention such that he was not able to effectively reply to the questions of the delegates."



  11. Links 23/11/2020: GNU Guix 1.2.0, Evaluating Precursor’s Hardware Security, Kdenlive 20.08.3, Kodi 19.x Beta, Vulkan 1.2.162

    Links for the day



  12. Links 23/11/2020: Linux 5.10-rc5, GIMP Turns 25, 4MLinux 34.2, Escuelas Linux 6.11, MPV Player 0.33

    Links for the day



  13. How to Put on Airs of Professionalism Like a Boss

    "Boardroom suits are not meant to be flashy, but to conform. Simple lines and smart ties -- the opposite of what Richard Stallman would wear, show that you are either a well-machined cog or a serious adversary."



  14. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, November 22, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, November 22, 2020



  15. Legal Action at the European Patent Office (EPO) Leveraged Against Management... for Robbing EPO Staff and Robbing Europe, by Extension

    The EPO is being looted for its value; the staff is rightly concerned and there’s legal action on the way, filed reluctantly as there’s clearly no other option (a last resort/necessary recourse)



  16. Cory Doctorow at Privacy Week 2020 on DRM, Freedom/Software Freedom, Regulation, Etc.

    “We Used To Have Cake, Now We’ve Barely Got Icing” by Cory Doctorow.



  17. Links 22/11/2020: KaOS 2020.11, Calindori 1.3, KStars 3.5.0

    Links for the day



  18. New Position Paper on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Says It's “Not the Best Solution for Europe” -- Clearly an Understatement

    UPC proponents (profiteers) aren't enjoying support anymore; not only has progress stalled (come to a complete stop) but the whole debate about the UPC (or anything conceptually like it) turned toxic and negative because facts come out, overriding lobbyists of litigation giants



  19. Mortality Rates Increase at the EPO and Christmases (or Holidays) During Corona Mean Fewer Days Off

    There's still no sign (other than hand-waving and empty gestures/smiles) that the EPO's management wishes to right the wrongs and undo the damage done over the past decade or so; in some ways, today's management is worse than ever before (grossly incompetent and eager to break the law at every turn)



  20. Newly Abnormal: A Crackdown on EPO Staff and Labour Rights in 'Survey' Clothing (Willis Towers Watson)

    In a very characteristic fashion, with zero consultation/input from staff (or staff representatives/union leaders) EPO President António Campinos proceeds to implementing illegal ‘reforms’, assuring any remaining non-sceptics that he’s just another Benoît Battistelli



  21. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, November 21, 2020

    IRC logs for Saturday, November 21, 2020



  22. [Meme] Good Advice From the FSF, So It's Time to #DeleteGitHub

    A good gift for the FSF would be git; not GitHub, but git



  23. Go Distributed, Go Encrypted, Go Secure, Transparency Still Possible

    Earlier today we enhanced access to our (sometimes anonymised) IRC logs by issuing text (ASCII) versions, which will from now onwards be a nightly/daily occurrence; we're also making everything we publish accessible from a large number of IPFS nodes (akin to P2P)



  24. IAM Celebrating and Glorifying Illegal Patents With Fake 'Awards' and Bogus 'Endorsements'

    IAM's fake 'awards' are nothing more than business and agenda-steering lies; it's time to call out again the real corruption that's driving IAM (which is itself supporting and advocating corruption)



  25. Been There, Done That: Team UPC's 'October' Becomes 'Early November' and Now Late November

    The self-serving litigation fanatics who mislead their customers are still at it; Bristows says that UPC has no issues other than “delay”



  26. The Only Real Dialogue the 'European' Patent Office is Having... is With Litigation Parasites, Even Foreign Ones

    The EPO's mask falls off again, revealing a ruthless herd immunity-like mentality that welcomes patent trolls, threatens/condemns actual scientists, harms Europe and basically does a disservice to everybody



  27. Inside the EPO During Corona: SUEPO (EPO Staff Union) and the Central Staff Committee Blast the Office for Illegal Practices and Threaten Legal Action

    The Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) and the Central Staff Committee (CSC) are escalating their tone; the management of the Office and the Organisation is running out of time as staff loses its patience and its tolerance for the repeated abuses by the administration



  28. IRC Proceedings: Friday, November 20, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, November 20, 2020



  29. Links 21/11/2020: Coreboot 4.13, EasyOS 2.5, Wine 5.22, Gmusicbrowser 1.1.16

    Links for the day



  30. Links 20/11/2020: Xfce 4.16pre2 and Qt Releases

    Links for the day


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts