EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

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 this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

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 9/12/2019: Linux 5.5 RC1, EasyOS Buster 2.1.9

    Links for the day



  2. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, December 08, 2019

    IRC logs for Sunday, December 08, 2019



  3. Mandatory Education for Those Who Use and Misuse Buzzwords Would Go a Long Way

    In an age of substitution — where marketing terms replace meaningful words and concepts — it has gotten more difficult to have honest debates, for example about the scope of patents



  4. Once Upon a Time Banter Was Allowed on Mailing Lists

    Hours ago Torvalds announced RC1 of the next Linux (kernel) release; it has been a while since he last said something ‘controversial’ (following his month at the penalty box); free speech deficit can make us weaker, not stronger (advantage to those who work in the dark)



  5. Links 8/12/2019: Debian Init Systems GR, NomadBSD 1.3

    Links for the day



  6. Can We Quit Celebrating DRM in GNU/Linux?

    Over the past couple of days various news sites and "Linux" sites expressed great satisfaction [1-5] over the passive embrace of Disney's DRM ploy (Disney+), even when Disney itself rejects DRM, seeing the harms practically caused by it [6,7]



  7. You Know WSL is Bad for GNU/Linux Because Anti-Linux People, Microsoft and Its Propagandists, Want People to Use That

    Microsoft and its boosters (and media partners) haven’t grown tired of spreading falsehoods to stigmatise and take control of GNU/Linux by creating their own versions and traps for it



  8. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, December 07, 2019

    IRC logs for Saturday, December 07, 2019



  9. 5 Years Ago the Linux Foundation Turned Linux.com Into a Non-Linux Site

    One can leverage the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to better understand how, over time, the Foundation called “Linux” deviated or diverged away from its mission statement for the sole purpose of raising corporate funds and selling influence to corporations (passing the community’s hard work to them — a form of tacit privatisation)



  10. Microsoft Redefining Ownership and Identity of GNU/Linux

    The idea that “Microsoft loves Linux” is as insane as it gets; but the lie which is “Microsoft loves Linux” is a powerful enabler of Microsoft entryism, e.g. if Greg steps down, does a Microsoft employee become the deputy of Linus Torvalds?



  11. Things That Cannot Be Said

    The limits on what we can say are mostly defined by what sources permit us to say publicly (for the sake of source protection)



  12. Fake European Patents (on Algorithms) Leading to Fake Embargoes

    Law firms have gotten their way in Germany; instead of supporting the productive workers the patent system is nowadays promoting the litigation 'industry' and it ought to be corrected



  13. From Moderate Advice to FUD and Misinformation: The Case of a VPN Vulnerability (CVE-2019-14899)

    What should have been a trivial bugfix in a variety of operating systems and bits of software — both proprietary and Free software — somehow became anti-Linux FUD, clickbait and worse



  14. Dangerous Thinker

    Society oughtn't be alarmed by people who say unusual things; it should be wary and sceptical of those corporations ever so eager to silence such people



  15. Unitary Patent (UPC) Died Along With the Credibility of Managing IP and the Rest of the UPC Lobby

    It is pretty astounding that Team UPC (collective term for people who crafted and lobby for this illegal construct) is still telling us lies, even in the absence of underlying supportive facts, and pressure groups disguised as "news sites" latch onto anything to perpetuate an illusion of progress (even in the face of a growing number of major barriers)



  16. IRC Proceedings: Friday, December 06, 2019

    IRC logs for Friday, December 06, 2019



  17. Links 7/12/2019: Fedora 31 Elections Results, Lots of Media Drama Over VPN Bug

    Links for the day



  18. Links 6/12/2019: DRM in GNU/Linux and Sparky Bonsai

    Links for the day



  19. The EPO Rejects Innovation

    The EPO ceased caring about the needs of scientists whose work involves invention; instead, EPO management crafts increasingly lenient guidelines that yield illegal European Patents (not compatible with the EPC) that heavily-besieged EPO judges are unable to stop



  20. Startpage CEO Robert Beens in 'Damage Control' Mode, Trying to Get Startpage Relisted After Selling to a Massive Surveillance Company

    PrivacytoolsIO is being lobbied by the CEO of Startpage to relist Startpage, based on no actual refutations at all



  21. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, December 05, 2019

    IRC logs for Thursday, December 05, 2019



  22. Links 5/12/2019: qBittorrent 4.2.0, Expensive Librem 5 and OpenBSD Bugs

    Links for the day



  23. Microsoft Staff Repeatedly Refuses to Tell How Many People Use WSL, Defends Patent Extortion and Blackmail of Linux Instead

    The people who develop WSL (mostly Microsoft employees) get easily irritated when asked how many people actually use this thing; but more interestingly, however, they reveal their disdain for GNU/Linux and support for Microsoft blackmail (for 'Linux patent tax')



  24. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, December 04, 2019

    IRC logs for Wednesday, December 04, 2019



  25. Links 4/12/2019: Tails 4.1, UCS 4.4-3 and Proxmox VE 6.1

    Links for the day



  26. Google Tightens Its Noose

    Now it’s official! Google is just a bunch of shareholders looking to appease the Pentagon at all costs



  27. Europeans Still Need to Save the European Patent Office From Those Who Attack Its Patent Quality

    Patent quality is of utmost interest; without it, as we're seeing at the EPO and have already seen at the USPTO for a number of years, legal disputes will arise where neither side wins (only the lawyers win) and small, impoverished inventors or businesses will be forced to settle outside the courts over baseless allegations, often made by parasitic patent trolls (possessing low-quality patents they don't want scrutinised by courts)



  28. We Never Accepted and Will Never Accept Corporate Money

    Corporate money is a unique problem because of its magnitude and the fact that it's impersonal; shareholders can only ever accept its supposed justifications if they're receiving something in return (of proportional worth to the payment/transaction)



  29. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, December 03, 2019

    IRC logs for Tuesday, December 03, 2019



  30. Links 3/12/2019: elementary OS 5.1 Hera, Plasma 5.17.4, Firefox 71

    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