-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Posted in Antitrust, Europe, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 4:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
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. █
Microsoft Proxy Attack on GNU/Linux Continues With TurboHerculesEye on Security: Windows Malware, Emergency Patches, and BeyondTrust’s CEO from MicrosoftIBM Uses Software Patents AggressivelyIBM’s Day of ShameIBM Will Never be the Same After Taking Software Patents Out of Its HolsterThumbs up to Ubuntu for Removing a Part of Microsoft; TurboHercules Likely a Psystar-Type Microsoft ShellWhy 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.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Sun Jun 2 13:57:24 2024