Regístrate
Regístrate
Back to the Encounters

Global Digital Encounters

Re-imagining IP in an ever-changing world

REFERENCES

Back to The Encounters

REFERENCES

The role of iP in a new post crisis world

Global Digital Encounters

What is it?

For those participants who wish to dig deeper into the topics we analyse here at the Global Digital Encounters, we publish this list of readings connected to each Encounter’s topic, which can prove useful and could be read at any time before or after the Encounters take place.

These links are non-exhaustive, in the sense that Speakers and the Moderator cover a broader scope of topics connected to each Encounter’s topic, but they offer insights that may bring further reflections for the future.

We’re now pleased to present them all together here.

Enjoy!

The References

Encounter 27: Intellectual Property: A Key Tool for Museums

May 2023

  1. Guide: Managing Intellectual Property for Museums, by Ms. Rina Elster Pantalony, 2013 Edition World Intellectual Property Organisation – WIPO Read

  2. Benhamou, Y., Copyright and museums in the digital age, 2016, WIPO, Read

  3. Casas Vallés, R., “La Propiedad intelectual de los museos”, Museos.es, nº4, 2008, pp. 79-96. Read

  4. ICOM, Copyright, Read

  5. ICOM, Statement by the International Council of Museums Concerning Exceptions to Copyright, 2018, Read

  6. Elsner, R., Managing copyright for museums, 2013, WIPO, Read

  7. Lazerow, H., Mastering Art Law, Carolina Academic Press, 2015.

  8. Lerner, R. and Bresler, J., Art Law, the guide for collectors, investors, dealers and artists, Vol.II, Practising Law Institute, N.Y.

  9. Massaguer Fuentes, J., “Aspectos del derecho de propiedad intelectual relacionados con la actividad de los museos”, Manual jurídico de los Museos: cuestiones prácticas, ed. Peñuelas, Marcial Pons, 1999, pp. 206-260.

  10. Prowda, J. Visual Arts and the Law, 2017, Sotheby’s Institute of Art.

  11. Zorich, D., Developing Intellectual Property Policies: A How-To Guide for Museums, Read

 

Encounter 26: Unitary Patent and UPC are on: and now what?

March 2023

  1. Website of the Unified Patent Court Read
  1. Unified Patent Court Agreement, 19 February 2013 Read
  1. Rules of Procedure of the unified Patent Court Read
  1. Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection Read
  1. Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements Read
  1. T. Mylly, “Hovering Between Intergovernmentalism and Unionization – The Shape of Unitary Patents”, Common Market Law review, vol. 52, 2017-5, pp. 1381-1425 Read
  2. M. Lamping, Matthias and H. Ullrich, Hanns, The Impact of Brexit on Unitary Patent Protection and its Court (August 30, 2018). Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 18-20, Read or Read
  3. R. M. Hilty et al, The Unitary Patent Package: Twelve Reasons for Concern, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper, nº 12-12, 2015, Read
  4. Broß, S., Lamping, M. Eyes Wide Shut. IIC 49, 887–894 (2018). Read

 

Encounter 25: Shaking the good old IP kit: The Metaverse

February 2023

Readings: 

  • Tom Ara, Mark Radcliffe, Michael Fluhr, Katherine Imp, Exploring the metaverse: What laws will apply?, Read 
  • Ethereum.org, Read 

 

Acts: 

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act), Read 

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL LAYING DOWN HARMONISED RULES ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACT) AND AMENDING CERTAIN UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTS, Read 

 

Case law: 

Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., №15–849 (Dec. 31, 2013) 

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 13 May 2014, C-131/12, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González, Read 

.

Encounter 24: Vintage Brands and the New Bad Faith Conundrum

January 2023

ECJ cases:

  1. Testarossa (ECJ, 22 October 2020, Joined Cases C-720/18 and C-721/18) – Read

.

General Court cases:

  1. Simca (GC, 8 May 2014, T-327/12) – Read
  2. Syrena (GC, 20 January 2022, T-35/22, pending) – Read
  3. Nehera (GC, 6 July 2022, T-250/21; BoA annulled) – Read

.

EUIPO Board of Appeal

  1. Syrena (EUIPO BoA, 26 October 2021, joined cases R 1952/2020-1 and 1953/2020-1) [earlier judgment in same dispute on ‘racing cars’ vs ‘cars’ – T-677/19]
  2. Hispano Suiza (EUIPO BoA, 9 July 2015, R0879/2013-2)

.

EUIPO Cancellation Division Cases

  1. Hispano Suiza (emblem) (OHIM Cancellation Division, 6 June 2022, C 47448)

.

National cases:

  1. World Cup Willie (EWHC, 18 Oct 2007, Jules Rimet Cup Ltd. v The Football Association Ltd. [2007])
  2. German Bundesgerichsthof  ((I ZB 23/11, 27 October 2011 – “Simca”)
  3. Pedro Miguel (Appeals Court of Granada, 30 December 2015, Decision 299/2015
  4. Meissl & Schadn (Vienna Higher Regional Court, 5 Dec 2016, 34R109/16
  5. Hispano Suiza (Spanish Supreme Court, 8 February 2017, 70/2017)
  6. Lambretta (Italian Supreme Court, 28 March 2017, decision No. 7970/2017)
  7. Tisza, Hungary Supreme Court (Kúria), 14 October 2020 – Pfv.IV.20.742/2019/6

.

Doctrine

  1. Kur, A. “As Good as New – Sale of Repaired or Refurbished Goods: Commendable Practice or Trade Mark Infringement?, GRUR International, Volume 70, Issue 3, March 2021, Pages 228–236, Read
  2. Rosati, E., “Is it bad faith to “pay homage” to a fashion brand of the past? Not necessarily, says the EU General Court”,  Read
  3. Sala, C., “Italy: The Search for Zombie Trademarks: A Continental EU Perspective”, 10 June 2021, Read
  4. Von Bomhard, V., “CJEU on Testarrosa – to the rescue of vintage brands, Read , Read
  1. Von Bomhard, V., Stajer, D., “General Court: no automatic protection of vintage marks through bad faith”, Read
  2. Von Bomhard, V., von Mühlendahl, A., “Bad Faith in European Trademark Law”, Podcast 17 June 2021 (33 minutes), Read

.

Encounter 23: IP Enforcement and Cybersecurity

December 2022

  • Zarsky, Tal, Incompatible: The GDPR in the Age of Big Data (August 8, 2017). Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 4(2), 2017, Available at SSRN: Read
  • Zarsky, Tal, The Privacy–Innovation Conundrum (April 20, 2015). Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2015, Available at SSRN: Read

 

Encounter 22: Open Science and IP: The Dilemma

November 2022

  • Barnes, L. (2018) Green, gold, diamond, black – what does it all mean? [Open Book Publishers blog]. Available at: Read (Accessed: 10 October 2021).
  • Benkler, Yochai. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
  • Cardellino, C. et al. (10 2014) “Licentia: a Tool for Supporting Users in Data Licensing on the Web of Data”, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1272.
  • Creative Commons (2021) Creative Commons Choose. Available at: Read (Accessed: 29 October 2021).
  • Elkin-Koren, Niva. (2006) “Exploring Creative Commons: A Skeptical View of a Worthy Pursuit.” In The Future of the Public Domain, edited by Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault. Kluwer Law International. Read.
  • European Commission (2016) Open innovation, open science, open to the world: A vision for Europe.
  • G.Havur,S.Steyskal,O.Panasiuk,A.Fensel,V.Mireles,T.Pellegrini,T.Thurner, A. Polleres, and S. Kirrane, (2018) “DALICC: A Framework for Publishing and Con- suming Data Assets Legally,” in International Conference on Semantic Systems (SEMANTICS), Poster&Demo.
  • High Level Expert Group on Scientific Data. (2010). Riding the wave. How Europe can gain from the rising tide of scientific data. Read docs/hlg-sdi-report.pdf
  • Hoffmann, A. et al. (2015) “Legal Compatibility as a Characteristic of Sociotechnical Systems”, Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(2), bll 103–113. doi: 10.1007/s12599-015-0373-5.
  • International Science Council (2020) “Open Science for the 21st century”, Draft ISC Working Paper.G.M. Kapitsaki, F. Kramer, and N. D. Tselikas (2016) Automating the license compatibility process in open source software with SPDX, The Journal of Systems and Software.
  • Kamocki, P., Straňák, P. en Sedlák, M. (2016) “The Public License Selector: Making Open Licensing Easier”, in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16). Portorož, Slovenia: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), bll 2533–2538. Available at: Read.
  • Laurent, Andrew M. St. (2004). Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing: Guide to Navigating Licensing Issues in Existing & New Software. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
  • L. Guimbault and C. Angelopoulos (2011) “Open content licensing, from theory to practice, Amsterdam University Press.
  • Mapelli, V. et al. (2016) “The ELRA License Wizard”, in LREC.
  • Moreau B., Serrano-Alvarado P., Perrin M., Desmontils E. (2019) Modelling the Compatibility of Licenses. In: Hitzler P. et al. (eds) The Semantic Web. ESWC 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11503. Springer, Cham. Read.
  • OECD (2015) “Making Open Science a Reality”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 25, OECD Publishing, Paris. URL: Read.
  • Mikko Valimaki (2005) “Rise of Open Source Licensing – A challenge to the use of intellectual property in the software industry”, MA thesis, Helsinki University of Technology.
  • Pearson, S. and Tsiavos, P (2014) “Taking the Creative Commons beyond Copyright: Developing Smart Notices as User Centric Consent Management Systems for the Cloud.” International Journal of Cloud Computing 3 (1): 94. Read.
  • Pellegrini, T. et al. (2018) “Automated Rights Clearance Using Semantic Web Technologies: The DALICC Framework”, in Hoppe, T., Humm, B., en Reibold, A. (reds) Semantic Applications: Methodology, Technology, Corporate Use. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, bll 203–218. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-55433-3_14.
  • Stallman, Richard. (1999). “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement.” In Open Sources: Voices From the Revolution, edited by Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, 53–”70. Bijing, Cambridge: O’Reilly.
  • Suber, Peter. (2008) “Open Access Overview.” October 7, 2008. Read.Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008).
  • Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. Expanded ed. New York: Portfolio The Royal Society (2012) “Science as an open enterprise”, Science Policy Centre report 02/12.

Encounter 22: Open Science and IP: The Dilemma

November 2022

  • Barnes, L. (2018) Green, gold, diamond, black – what does it all mean? [Open Book Publishers blog]. Available at: Read (Accessed: 10 October 2021).
  • Benkler, Yochai. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
  • Cardellino, C. et al. (10 2014) “Licentia: a Tool for Supporting Users in Data Licensing on the Web of Data”, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1272.
  • Creative Commons (2021) Creative Commons Choose. Available at: Read (Accessed: 29 October 2021).
  • Elkin-Koren, Niva. (2006) “Exploring Creative Commons: A Skeptical View of a Worthy Pursuit.” In The Future of the Public Domain, edited by Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault. Kluwer Law International. Read.
  • European Commission (2016) Open innovation, open science, open to the world: A vision for Europe.
  • G.Havur,S.Steyskal,O.Panasiuk,A.Fensel,V.Mireles,T.Pellegrini,T.Thurner, A. Polleres, and S. Kirrane, (2018) “DALICC: A Framework for Publishing and Con- suming Data Assets Legally,” in International Conference on Semantic Systems (SEMANTICS), Poster&Demo.
  • High Level Expert Group on Scientific Data. (2010). Riding the wave. How Europe can gain from the rising tide of scientific data. Read docs/hlg-sdi-report.pdf
  • Hoffmann, A. et al. (2015) “Legal Compatibility as a Characteristic of Sociotechnical Systems”, Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(2), bll 103–113. doi: 10.1007/s12599-015-0373-5.
  • International Science Council (2020) “Open Science for the 21st century”, Draft ISC Working Paper.G.M. Kapitsaki, F. Kramer, and N. D. Tselikas (2016) Automating the license compatibility process in open source software with SPDX, The Journal of Systems and Software.
  • Kamocki, P., Straňák, P. en Sedlák, M. (2016) “The Public License Selector: Making Open Licensing Easier”, in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16). Portorož, Slovenia: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), bll 2533–2538. Available at: Read.
  • Laurent, Andrew M. St. (2004). Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing: Guide to Navigating Licensing Issues in Existing & New Software. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
  • L. Guimbault and C. Angelopoulos (2011) “Open content licensing, from theory to practice, Amsterdam University Press.
  • Mapelli, V. et al. (2016) “The ELRA License Wizard”, in LREC.
  • Moreau B., Serrano-Alvarado P., Perrin M., Desmontils E. (2019) Modelling the Compatibility of Licenses. In: Hitzler P. et al. (eds) The Semantic Web. ESWC 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11503. Springer, Cham. Read.
  • OECD (2015) “Making Open Science a Reality”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 25, OECD Publishing, Paris. URL: Read.
  • Mikko Valimaki (2005) “Rise of Open Source Licensing – A challenge to the use of intellectual property in the software industry”, MA thesis, Helsinki University of Technology.
  • Pearson, S. and Tsiavos, P (2014) “Taking the Creative Commons beyond Copyright: Developing Smart Notices as User Centric Consent Management Systems for the Cloud.” International Journal of Cloud Computing 3 (1): 94. Read.
  • Pellegrini, T. et al. (2018) “Automated Rights Clearance Using Semantic Web Technologies: The DALICC Framework”, in Hoppe, T., Humm, B., en Reibold, A. (reds) Semantic Applications: Methodology, Technology, Corporate Use. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, bll 203–218. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-55433-3_14.
  • Stallman, Richard. (1999). “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement.” In Open Sources: Voices From the Revolution, edited by Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, 53–”70. Bijing, Cambridge: O’Reilly.
  • Suber, Peter. (2008) “Open Access Overview.” October 7, 2008. Read.Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008).
  • Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. Expanded ed. New York: Portfolio The Royal Society (2012) “Science as an open enterprise”, Science Policy Centre report 02/12.

Encounter 21: The Metaverse as a Challenge to Classical IP

June 2022

  • Reed Smith Guide to the Metaverse Read
  • IP everywhere: the great challenge of the metaverse Read
  • Digital ownership, the birth of a new concept Read
  • Digital Pioneers: As Big Clients Move to the Metaverse, Law Firms Begin to Follow Suit Read
  • What marketers need to know about keeping it legal in the metaverse Read
  • The metaverse: real world laws give rise to virtual world problem Read
  • NFT ownership in the metaverse Read
  • The treachery of images: non-fungible tokens and copyright Read
  • What will property look like in the Metaverse? Read

 

Encounter 20: Standard Essential Patents

May 2022

  • Group of Expert on Licensing and Valuation of SEPs: A Contribution to the Debate on SEPs (2021) available at: Read
  • Bowman Heiden, Justus Baron, ‘A Policy Governance Framework for SEP Licensing: Assessing Private Versus Public Market Interventions’ (2021) available at: Read
  • Igor Nikolic, ‘Global Standard-Essential Patent Litigation: Anti-Suit and Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions?’ (April 2022) Robert Schuman Centre Working Paper 2022/10
  • Igor Nikolic ‘Licensing Negotiation Groups for SEPs: Collusive Technology Buyers Arrangements? Their Pitfalls and Reasonable Alternatives’ (December 2021) les Nouvelles, available at: Read
  • Igor Nikolic and Niccolo Galli, ‘Patent Pools in 5G: Principles for Facilitating Pool Licensing’  (2022) Telecommunications Policy
  • Jorge Contreras, ‘Much Ado About Holdup’  (2019) University of Illinois Law Review 875
  • Joachim Henkel, The Licensing of Standard-Essential Patents in the IoT – A Value Chain Perspective on the Market for Technology’ (2022) available at: Read
  • Igor Nikolic, ‘Comments on the DOJ, USPTO and NIST 2021 Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to F/RAND Commitments’ (2022) available at: Read
  • Anne Layne-Farrar, Richard Stark, ‘License to All or Access to All? A Law and Economics Assessment of Standard Development Organizations’ Licensing Rules’ (2020) 88 The George Washington Law Review 1307
  • Igor Nikolic, “Licensing Negotiation Groups For SEPs: Collusive Technology Buyers Arrangements? Their Pitfalls And Reasonable Alternatives”(2021) les Nouvelles Read

 

Encounter 19:AI and the audio-visual world

March 2022

  • Ginsburg and Budiardjo, Authors and Machines: Read
  • Mazziotti, A Data-Driven Approach to Copyright in the Age of Online Platforms: Read
  • European Commission, Study on Copyright and New Technologies(2022), Part II: Read
  • Nordemann, AIPPI: No copyright protection for AI works without human input, but related rights remain: Read
  • European Audiovisual Observatory, Artificial intelligence in the audiovisual sector: Read
  • Resolution: 2019-Study Question – Copyright in artificially generated works. Read
  • European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union, Rehm, G., The use of artificial intelligence in the audiovisual sector : concomitant expertise for INI report : research for CULT Committee, European Parliament, 2020, Read

  • Media Policy and Copyright in Europe: the Progressive Expansion of the Law for Broadcasters to Online Platforms,  freely available at: Read

 

Encounter 18: IP and Videogames

January 2022

  • Alina Trapova and Emanuele Fava, ‘Aren’t We All Exhausted Already? EU Copyright Exhaustion and Video Game Resales in the Games-as-a-Service Era’ (2020) 3 Interactive Entertainment Law Review 77.
  • Péter Mezei, Copyright Exhaustion: Law and Policy in the United States and the European Union (Second edition, Cambridge University Press 2022), will be available from February 2022 Read
  • Tito Rendas, ‘Lex Specialis(Sima): Videogames and Technological Protection Measures in EU Copyright Law’ (2015) 37 EIPR 39.
  • Joost Poort and João Pedro Quintais, ‘Global Online Piracy Study’ (IViR (Institute for Information Law) 2018), Read
  • Caterina Sganga, ‘A Plea for Digital Exhaustion in EU Copyright Law’ (2018) 9 JIPITEC 211, Read
  • Paul LC Torremans, ‘The Future Implications of the Usedsoft Decision’ [2014] CREATe Working Paper, Read
  • Case C‑263/18 Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet Internet BV and Others [2019] CJEU ECLI:EU:C:2019:1111, Read
  • Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp [2012] CJEU ECLI:EU:C:2012:407, Read
  • Nintendo v. PC Box, (CJEU) Case C‑355/12, Read
  • Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982), Read
  •  Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F. Supp. 2d 394, (D.N.J. 2012), Read
  •  E.S.S. Entm’t 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. – 547 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008), Read
  •  M General LLC v. Activision Blizzard, et al., No. 17 Civ. 8644 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2020), Read
  •  Manuel Noriega v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. BC 551747 (Cal Super. Ct. filed October 27, 2014), Read
  • Lohan v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 31 N.Y.3d 111 (2018), Read
  • Gaetano Dimita, Andrea Rizzi, Nicoletta Serao, ‘Image rights, creativity and videogames’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 15, Issue 3, March 2020, Pages 185–192, Read
  • MH Redish and KB Shust, ‘The Right of Publicity and the First Amendment in the Modern Age of Commercial Speech’ (2015) 56 Wm & Mary L Rev 1443, Read
  • D Georgescu, ‘Two Tests Unite to Resolve the Tension Between the First Amendment and the Right of Publicity’ (2014) 83 Fordham L Rev 907, Read
  • J Sinclair, ‘Noriega v. Activision/Blizzard: The First Amendment Right to Use a Historical Figure’s Likeness in Video Games’ (2015) 14 Duke Law & Technology Review 69, Read

 

Encounter 17: Licensing Standard Essential Patents

November 2021

  • Eltzroth, Carter, ‘Fostering by Standards Bodies of the Formation of Patent Pools’, 5 December 2018, Read
  • den Uijl, Simon, Bekkers, Rudi, de Vries, Henk J., ‘Managing Intellectual Property Using Patent Pools’, California Management Review, vol. 55, no. 4, summer 2013; pp. 31-50. Read
  • FOSS Patents: SEP Licensing Negotiation Groups — Part I: analogy to patent pools entails false symmetry between facilitating and complicating automotive patent licenses +Part II and III. Read
  • L. Contreras (2018) “Patents, Standards and Borders in Megaregionalism: Innovation and Trade Within Global Networks”, Ch. 12 (D. Ernst & M. Plummer, eds., World Scientific Studies in International Economics), 2018, Read.
  • Jorge L. Contreras, Global Rate-Setting: A Solution for Standards Essential Patents? 94 Wash. L. Rev. 701-757 (2019). Read
  • Jorge L. Contreras, It’s Anti-suit Injunctions All the Way Down – the Strange New Realities of International Litigation over Standards-Essential Patents, IP Litigator, 14-21, July/August 2020. Read
  • Jorge L. Contreras, Anti-Suit Injunctions and Jurisdictional Competition In Global FRAND Litigation: The Case For Judicial Restraint, NYU J. IP & Ent. L. (2022, forthcoming). Read
  • Nikolic, Igor, Licensing Negotiation Groups for SEPs – Collusive Technology Buyers Arrangements: Pitfalls and Reasonable Alternatives (September 19, 2021). les Nouvelles forthcoming, Available at SSRN: Read
  • Peters, Ruud, ‘One-Blue: a blueprint for patent pools in high tech’, Intellectual Asset Management, September/October 2011, pp. 38-41. Read

 

Encounter 16: Domain Name Systems

October 2021

  • M. Trimble (2018), “Territorialization of the Internet Domain Name System” (Pepperdine Law Review) Read
  • WIPO, Frequently Asked Questions: Internet Domain Names, 2021 Read
  • EUIPO, DOMAIN NAMES – DISCUSSION PAPER Challenges and good practices from registrars and registries to prevent the misuse of domain names for IP infringement activities Read
  • EUIPO Publications 2021, Read
  • ITC, What are the intellectual property issues involved in choosing and registering domain names? Read
  • Marius Kalinauskas, Mantas Barčys, Legal Challenges Related to the Regulation of a Domain Name System, Social Technologies Research Journal, Vol 2, No 2 (2012, Read
  • Resolving Domain Name Disputes – a Singapore Perspective (Singapore Academy of Law Journal 14 2002); Read
  • Singapore Network Information Centre (SGNIC) Domain Dispute Resolution Policy (May 15th, 2016); Read
  • Singapore Legal Advice – Cybersquatting: how to win back stolen domains in Singapore (July 22nd 2019). Read
  • China Law Insight – The relation between Domain Name Registration and Trademark Infringement (August 13th, 2013); Read
  • The interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the rial of Civil Despite Cases Involving Computer Network Domain Names (2020 Amendment); Read
  • China Perspectives – Internet Domain Names in China (Open Edition Journals – December 1st, 2015); Read
  • HFG Law & Intellectual Property: Now.cn or never: choose the right registrar in China (August 28th, 2020); Read
  • Government of Canada – Domain name registration in China (March 26th, 2021). Read
  • Tackling bad faith registration of domain names in a fast-changing landscape, Read
  • uide to WIPO’s services for country code top-level domain registries. Read

 

Encounter 15: cross-border intellectual property disputes: the ILA-Kyoto Guidelines

September 2021

  • JIPITEC 12 (1) 2021,   Read
  • T. Kono, P. de Miguel Asensio and Axel Metzger (2021), “ILA “Kyoto Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law” published with comments”, in Conflictoflaws.net, Read
  • T. Kono, Intellectual Property and Private International Law Read

 

Encounter 14: Expanding Business Thanks to Data Economy: IP As a Tool

July 2021

  • Abbott, R. (2017), ‘Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Intellectual Property: Protecting Computer-Generated Works in the United Kingdom’ [2017] Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Digital Technologies 1, Read
  • Ashley, KD. (2017), Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics: New Tools for Law Practice in the Digital Age (Cambridge University Press 2017).
  • Butler, T.L. (1982), ‘Can a Computer Be an Author – Copyright Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, [1982] 4 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 707, Read
  • Centre for Information Policy Leadership (2020), ‘Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection How the GDPR Regulates AI’, Read
  • Geiger, Ch., Frosio, G. and Bulayenko, O. (2018), The Exception for Text and Data Mining (TDM) in the Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market – Legal Aspects (March 2, 2018). Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) Research Paper No. 2018-02, Read.
  • Geiger, Ch., Frosio, G. and Bulayenko, O. (2020), ‘Text and Data Mining: Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive 2019/790/EU’, in Saiz García, C. and Evangelio Llorca, R. (Eds.), Propiedad intellectual y mercado único digital europeo”, Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch, 2019, pp. 219-71, Read
  • Hashiguchi, M. (2017), ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Jurisprudence of Patent Eligibility in the United States, Europe, and Japan.’ [2017] Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, Read
  • Lupu, M. (2018) ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property’, 53 World Patent Information A1, Read
  • Margoni, T. and Kretschmer, M. (2018), The Text and Data Mining Exception in the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Why It Is Not What EU Copyright Law Needs, Read
  • Margoni, T. and Dore, G. (2016), ‘Why We Need a Text and Data Mining Exception (but It Is Not Enough)’, Proceedings of the Workshop on Cross-Platform Text Mining and Natural Language Processing Interoperability (INTEROP 2016) at LREC (2016), Read
  • Noto La Diega, and Sappa, C. (2020), ‘The Internet of Things at the Intersection of Data Protection and Trade Secrets. Non-Conventional Paths to Counter Data Appropriation and Empower Consumers’, 3 Revue européenne de droit de la consommation / European Journal of Consumer Law, 2020, pp. 419-458, Read
  • Ramalho, A. (2018), ‘Patentability of AI-Generated Inventions: Is a Reform of the Patent System Needed?’, 86 SSRN Electronic Journal 1, Read
  • Russell, S. and others (2015), ‘Robotics: Ethics of Artificial Intelligence’ (2015) 521 Nature 415
  • Schuster, W.M. (2018), ‘Artificial Intelligence and Patent Ownership’, 75 Washington and Lee Law Review, Issue 4, Article 5, Read
  • Veale, M. and Zuiderveen Borgesius., F. (2021), ‘Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act.’, SocArXiv. July 6, 2021, Read
  • Yanisky-Ravid, S. and Liu, X. (Jackie) (2017), ‘When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent Law’ [2017] SSRN Electronic Journal, Read

 

Encounter 13: Intangible Cultural Heritage and IP

June 2021

  • Benedetta Ubertazzi, ‘Guidelines on IPRs on food-related ICH of the Alpine communities’ (2018) Read  
  • Benedetta Ubertazzi, (2017). ‘EU Geographical Indications and Intangible Cultural Heritage’, in International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), pp. 1-26 Read
  • (Benedetta Ubertazzi is a contributor to) UNESCO, World Bank, ‘Cities, Culture, Creativity : Leveraging Culture and Creativity for Sustainable Urban Development and Inclusive Growth’, Read

  • Desantes Real, M. (2020), “Protecting Intangible Cultural Heritage through Intellectual Property: A Challenge for IP Classic Tools”, Mélanges Michel Vivant, Dalloz, pp. 557-571. Read

  • Ghosh, Sh. (ed.) (2020) Forgotten Intellectual Property Lore, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing

  • H.J. Deacon et al. ‘Co-developing heritage-sensitive intellectual property and marketing strategies with bearer communities: the case of Bengal Patachitra, India’ and ‘Promoting sustainable development through intangible cultural heritage: The co-creation of heritage-sensitive intellectual property and marketing strategies (HIPAMS) with bearer communities’, forthcoming in Enhancing Intangible Cultural Heritage: Socio-economic contributions for ICH safeguarding, Fondazione Santagata, Italy.

  • H.J. Deacon. ‘Ethics, intellectual property and commercialization of cultural heritage’, forthcoming in Pravovedenie.

  • John Harrington, Harriet Deacon & Peter Munyi (2021) Sovereignty and development: law and the politics of traditional knowledge in Kenya, Critical African Studies, DOI: 10.1080/21681392.2021.1884108 Read 

  • “Needs of the Sámi people for intellectual property protection from the viewpoint of copyright and trademarks – especially with regard to duodji-handicrafts and the Sámi dresses”: Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, (2018) Read 

  • “Copyright Protection of Sámi Traditional Cultural Expressions in Finland”, Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd, (3/2019)  Read

  • “Trademark protection of traditional cultural expressions of Sámi people in Finland”, Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd, (will be published in NIR 2/2021)  Read

  • Waelde, C. and Pavis, M. (eds.) (2018) Research Handbook on Contemporary Intangible Cultural Heritage, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing

 

Encounter 12: The Race For The Vaccine: From Invention To Effective Vaccination - IP As A Tool Or As A Toll?

May 2021

 Trips and Public Health

  • WTO webpage: Read.
  • WHO-WIPO-WTO: Promoting Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation: Intersections between public health, intellectual property, and trade (second edition, March 2021). Read.
  • WTO Members discuss TRIPS waiver request, exchange views on IP role amid a pandemic, WTO, 23 February 2021. Read.

Open Innovation

  • MIT Sloan Management Review: Is Your Company Ready for Open Innovation? Ulrich Lichtenthaler, Martin Hoegl, and Miriam Muethel September 2011. Read.
  • IAM Magazine: Is Your Country Ready for Open Innovation? Michel Neu September/October 2014. Read.

Anti-COVID 19 and IP

  • Medicines Law and Policy: How the ‘Oxford’ Covid-19 vaccine became the ‘AstraZeneca’ Covid-19 vaccine Christopher Garrison October 2020. Read.  
  • Medicines Law and Policy: The European Commission says Covid-19 vaccines should be global public goods but do their agreements with pharma reflect this? Ellen ‘t Hoen & Pascale Boulet, January 28, 2021. Read.
  • AstraZeneca Statement on EU legal action. Read.

  • U.S. backs waiving patent protections for Covid vaccines, citing global health crisis. Read.

Encounter 11: The Future of Geographical Indications and Traceability in a Covid Transformed World

April 2021

  • 2020 Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation on, and protection of, geographical indications (Brussels, 9 July 2020, Read here
  • Belletti, G., Marescotti, A., Touzard, J. M. (2017), “Geographical Indications, Public Goods, and Sustainable Development: The Roles of Actors’ Strategies and Public Policies”, World Development, Vol. 98, pp. 45. Read here
  • Chandrashekaran, S. (2010), “From Laddu to GI and After: A Post-grant Analysis of the Tirupati Laddu Registration”, Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 4 (3), pp.70-77, Read.
  • Covarrubia, P. (2019), “’Geographical Indications of Traditional Handicrafts: A cultural Element in a Predominantly Economic Activity”, IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law50,
  • Ferreira, E. and Pereira, P. (2011), “Collective Marks and Geographical Indications-Competitive Strategy of Differentiation and Appropriation of Intangible Heritage’ (2011), 16 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 16, May 2011, pp. 246-257, Read
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018) “Strengthening Sustainable Food Systems through Geographical Indications: An Analysis of Economic Impacts.” Read here
  • Frankel, S. and Drahos, P. (ed) (2012), Indigenous Peoples’ Innovation: Intellectual Property Pathways to Development, Australian National University, E Press, 276 pp., Read.
  • Gangjee, D. S. (2020), “Sui Generis or independent Geographical Indications Protection”, in Irene Calboli and Jane Ginsburg (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law(Cambridge University Press, 2020) 256, Read.
  • Hughes, J. (2006), “Champagne, Feta, and Bourbon – the Spirited Debate About Geographical Indications”, 58 Hastings L. J. 299, Read.
  • Hughes, J. (2009-2010), Coffee and Chocolate – Can We Help Developing Country Farmers Through Geographical Indications?, A study done for the International Intellectual Property Institute, Read and Read.
  • Hughes, J. (2016), “The Limited Promise of Geographical Indications for Developing Country Farmers”, in I. Calboli and Wee Loon Ng-Loy (Eds.), Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture in the Asia-Pacific, Cambridge University Press, Read.
  • Hughes, J. (2017) “The Limited Promise of GIs for Farmers in Developing Countries” in Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture, Irene Calboli and Wee Loon Ng-Loy (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 61-86. Read here
  • Marescotti A. and others (2020) “Are Protected Geographical Indications Evolving Due to Environmentally Related Justifications? An Analysis of Amendments in the Fruit and Vegetable Sector in the European Union” Sustainability, Vol. 12, pp. 1-19. Read here
  • Marie-Vivien, D. (2010), “The Role of the State in the Protection of Geographical Indications: From Disengagement in France/Europe to Significant Involvement in India”, 13(2) The Journal of World Intellectual Property, Vol. 13(2), pp. 121-147, Read.
  • Marie-Vivien, D. (2016) “A comparative analysis of GIs for handicrafts: the link to origin in culture as well as nature?” in Research handbook on intellectual property and geographical indications Dev Ganjee (ed.), Edward Elgar, pp. 292-326. Read here

  • Marie-Vivien, D.; Carimentrand, A.; Fournier, S.; Sautier, D.; Cerdan, C. (1019), “Controversies around Geographical Indications: are democracy and representativeness the solution?”, British Food Journal 2019, 121 (12), pp. 2995-3010. Read.

  • Marie-Vivien, D.; Biénabe, E. (2018), “The Multifaceted Role of the State in the Protection of Geographical Indications: A Worldwide Review”, World Development 2018, 98 (October), pp. 1-11. Read.

  • Marie-Vivien, D.; Garcia, C. A.; Kushalappa, C. G.; Vaast, P. (2014), “Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Environmental Labelling to Promote Biodiversity: The Case of Agroforestry Coffee”,  India Development Policy Review, 2014, 32 (4), pp. 379–398. Read.

  • Marie-Vivien, D. (2020), “Protection of Geographical Indications in ASEAN countries: Convergences and challenges to awakening sleeping Geographical Indications”, The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23 (6)
  • O’Connor, B. and Richardson, L. (2012) “The legal protection of Geographical Indications in the EU’s Bilateral Trade Agreements: moving beyond TRIPS”, Rivista di diritto alimentare, Issue 4, pp. 1-29. Read here
  • Pai, Y. and Singla, T. (2017), ‘“Vanity GIs”: India’s Legislation on Geographical Indications and the Missing Regulatory Framework’  in Irene Calboli & Wee Loong Ng-Loy (eds), Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture: Focus on Asia-Pacific(Cambridge University Press 2017), pp. 333-358, Read.
  • Rangnekar, D. (2009), “Geographical Indications and Localisation: A Case Study of Feni”, ESRC Report, 64 pp., Read.
  • Twarog, S. and Kapoor, P. (2004), Protecting and Promoting Traditional Knowledge: Systems, National Experiences and International Dimensions(UNCTAD 2004), Read.
  • Zafrilla Díaz-Marta, V. and Kyrylenko, A. (2021), “The ever-growing scope of Geographical indications’ evocation: from Gorgonzola to Morbier”, Journal of intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2021, pp.1-8,
  • Zappalaglio, A. (2019) “Sui Generis Geographical Indications for the Protection of Non-Agricultural Products in the EU: Can the Quality Schemes Fulfil the Task?”, IIC, Vol. 51, pp. 31–69. Read here
  • Zappalaglio, A. (2019) “The Debate Between the European Parliament and the Commission on the Definition of Protected Designation of Origin: Why the Parliament Is Right”, IIC, Vol. 50, pp. 595-610. Read here

Encounter 10: Fostering a Dynamic IP System Based on the SDGs

March 2021

  • United Nations, Make the SDGs a Reality, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sustainable Development, Read.
  • WIPO, WIPO and the Sustainable Development Goals – The impact of Innovation, Read.
  • WIPO, WIPO and the Sustainable Development Goals – Innovation Driving Human Progress  (2019) 30 pp., Read.
  • WIPO, Report on WIPO’s Contribution to the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and its Associated Targets, CDIP/23/10, 19 March 2019, Read.
  • WIPO, Report on WIPO’s Contribution to the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and its Associated Targets, CDIP/2776, 11 March 2020, Read.
  • WIPO, Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property (2015), Brief No 1, 4 pages, Read.
  • WIPO, Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources (2019), Brief No 10, 8 pages, Read.
  • WIPO, Navigating Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property – The Story of the Yakuanoi (2018), 5:16 minutes, Watch.
  • WIPO, Stories from the Field: Three Indigenous Women Entrepreneurs and Their Resilience During Covid-19
  • Pandemic (20 October 2020), Read.
    Yu, P. K., “Realigning TRIPS-Plus Negotiations with UN Sustainable Development Goals,” in I.B. Ørstavik and O.-A. Rognstad (eds.), Intellectual Property and Sustainable Markets (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing 2021) (forthcoming), Read.
  • Banermann, S., “The World Intellectual Property Organization and the sustainable development agenda”, in Futures, Volume 122, September 2020, Read.
  • Ford, S. and Despeisse, M. (2016), “Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of the advantages and challenges”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 137, Read.
  • OECD (2017), Enabling the Next Production Revolution: A Summary of Main Messages and Policy Lessons, Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level, 28 pp., Read.
  • Rodríguez-Espíndola, O. (2020), “The potential of emergent disruptive technologies for humanitarian supply chains: the integration of blockchain, Artificial Intelligence and 3D printing”, in International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58, 2020, Issue 15, pp. 4610-4630, Read.

Encounter 9: Brexit - European and Worldwide IP

February 2021

Sources concerning Brexit and IP following the conclusion of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (applying from 1 January 2021)

  • Text of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, Read. Note Part Two, Title V: Intellectual Property, pp. 139-162, articles IP.1 to IP.57, Read.
  • Text of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, Read.
  • UK Government (2021), Intellectual Property after 1 January 2021, (Last Updated: 15 January 2021), Read.
  • Dennis G., Connor I. (2021), What the EU-UK Trade Agreement Means for IP Rights?, Pinsent Masons, Read.
  • Firth, A. (2021) Brexit notes for Global Digital Encounter 09, Read
  • Nard, C., Duffy, J. (2007), “Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle”, Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 101-4, pp. 1619-1675, Read.
  • Shorthose S. (2021), Brexit: English Intellectual Property Law Implications, Bird&Bird Brexit Series, Read.
  • Strowel A., Advocating an EU Copyright Title, in P. Torremans (ed.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (2nd ed.), Edward Elgar, 2021, p. 1104-1117, Read

 

Brexit and IP scenarios before the conclusion of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

  • Intellectual Property Office of Ireland (2020), The Impact of Brexit on Intellectual Property, Read.
  • Allan N., Browne M., Carboni A. (2018), Post-Brexit IP Rights: What is Agreed and Yet to Be Agreed under the European Commission’s Draft Withdrawal Agreement, 13 Journal of Intellectual Property and Practice 8 608-610.
  • Firth A., Cornford P., and Griffiths A.P. Brexit and COVID-19, ch17 in Trade Marks: Law and Practice (5th edn 2020, LexisNexis) at 17.14 to 17.25, kindly made available as a free excerpt by the publishers. Read
  • Pasqui, L. (2018), Brexit: Where Do We Stand?, KSLR Commercial & Financial Law Blog, Conference Report, Read
  • Strowel, A. (2017), Droits intellectuels en mode post-Brexit : quo vadis Britannia ?, (2017) 64 Proprietes Intellectuelles 19- 26, Read. 
  • Rahmatian A. (2017), Brief Speculations about Changes to IP Law in the UK after Brexit, 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 6 510-515.

 

Encounter 8: The AI and data-led revolution of copyright and its wider implications

January 2021

Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Machine Learning and Text and Data Mining Exceptions to Copyright

  • Allan, J. E. M. (ed), (2020), Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence, Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework, Final report, read.
  •  Gervais, D. (2019), “The Machine As Author”, Iowa Law Review, Vol. 105, 2019, Vanderbilt Legal Studies Research Paper  Series, No. 19-35, read.
  • Guadamuz, A. (2017), “Artificial intelligence and copyright”, WIPO Magazine, October 2017, read.
  • Margoni, Th. (2018), Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and EU Copyright Law: Who Owns AI? (November 10, 2018), CREATe Working Paper 2018/12, read.
  • Mezei, P. (2020), “From Leonardo to the Next Rembrandt –The Need for AI-Pessimism in the Age of Algorithms”, UFITA, Issue 2/2020 (forthcoming), read.

 

Automated Enforcement of Copyright, Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Rights

  • Flynn, S., Geiger, Ch. and Quintais, J.P. (2020), “Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action” (with the collaboration of T. Margoni, T.,  Sag, M., Guibault, L. and Carroll, M.), European Intellectual Property Review 42, 7, 393-398, read.
  • Geiger, Ch. (2020), “Une politique pensée ? Droit d’auteur, intelligence artificielle et big data : quand les choix du passé augurent mal des politiques futures”, Propriétés intellectuelles 2020, No. 77, pp. -138.
  • Geiger, Ch., Frosio, G. and Bulayenko, O. (2019), “Text and Data Mining: Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive 2019/790/EU”, in Saiz García, C. and Evangelio Llorca, R. (eds.), Propiedad intelectual y mercado único digital europeo, Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch, 2019, pp. 27 ss.; Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) Research Paper No. 2019-08, read.
  • Geiger, Ch., Frosio, G. and Bulayenko, O. (2018),“Crafting a Text and Data Mining Exception for Machine Learning and Big Data in the Digital Single Market”, in Seuba, X, Geiger, Ch. and Pénin, J. (eds.), Intellectual Property and Digital Trade in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data, CEIPI/ ICTSD Series on Global Perspectives and Challenges for the Intellectual Property System, Volume 5, Geneva/ Strasbourg, pp. 95-112, read.
  • Gervais, D., (2019), “Exploring the Interfaces Between Big Data and Intellectual Property Law”, JIPITEC 3 para 1, read.
  • Hugenholtz, B. (2019), “The New Copyright Directive: Text and Data Mining (Articles 3 and 4)”, Kluwer Copyright Blog, July 24, 2019, read.
  • Rosati, E. (2019), “Copyright as an Obstacle or an Enabler? A European Perspective on Text and Data Mining and Its Role in the Development of AI Creativity”, Asia Pacific Law Review, vol. 27-2, pp.198-217, read.

 

Automated Enforcement of Copyright, Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Rights

  • Geiger, Ch., Frosio, G. and Izyumenko, E. (2020), “Intermediary Liability and Fundamental Rights”, in Frosio, G. (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Intermediary Liability Online, Oxford, OUP, 2020, pp. 138 ss.; Center for International Intellectual Property Studies Research Paper No. 2019-06, read.
  • Frosio, G. and Geiger, Ch. (2021), “Taking Fundamental Rights Seriously in the Digital Service Act’s Platform Liability Regime” (with the contribution of Fedunyshyn. K.), White Paper Report, January 4th, 2021, Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, read.

 

Encounter 7: Trade secrets A re-visited business tool towards A new rebound

December 2020

  • Aplin, T. (2020), “The Limits of EU Trade Secret Protection” in Sandeen, S., Rademacher, C. and Ohly, A. (eds) Research Handbook on Information Law and Governance, Edward Elgar Publishing, Forthcoming, Read
  • Fox, B. (2020) “Tripping Over the EU Trade Secret Directive: ‘Reasonable Steps’ to Get Back on Track”, Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property,  Vol. 19, Issue 1-2020, Read
  • International Chamber of Commerce (2019) “Protecting trade secrets – Recent EU and US Reforms. Recommendations for Policy Makers Worlwide”, Read
  • Klein, M. (2020), “Trade Secret Protection in a Developing Economy”, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Read
  • Kolasa, M. (2018). Trade Secret, Employee’s Skill and Knowledge or Public Domain Information: Where to Draw the Line? In Trade Secrets and Employee Mobility: In Search of an Equilibrium (Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law, pp. 93-164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108545921.005, Read
  • Luigi Alberto Franzoni Arun Kumar Kaushik «The optimal scope of trade secrets law” Bologna University Quaderni – Working Paper DSE N°1020, Read
  • N. Binctin Trade secret’s protection in France, Allen&Overy Paris, Read
  • Nordberg, A. “Trade Secrets, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence Innovation: a Legal Oxymoron?” in Schovsbo, J., Minssen, T. and Riis, T. (eds.) (2020) The Harmonization and Protection of Trade Secrets in the EU. An Appraisal of the EU Directive, United Kingdom, Edward Elgar Publishing, Read
  • Sandeen S. K., Bibliography, Read
  • Sandeen, S. K. and Rowe, E. A. (2018), Trade Secret Law in a Nutshell, United States, West Academic Publishing, Read.
  • Searle, N. (2020), “The Economic and Innovation Impact of Trade Secrets”, SSRN, Read
  • Vecellio, R. (2020), “Securitizing Innovation to Protect Trade Secrets Between ‘the East’ and ‘the West’: A Neo-Schumpeterian Public Legal Reading”, Pacific Basin Law Journal, Vol. 37(I), Read
  • WIPO (2019), “Symposium on Trade Secrets and Innovation. Summary of Discussion”, Read
  • WIPO (2020), “Conversation on Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI)”, Read.
  • WIPO Trade secrets, Read
  • WTO (2020), “The TRIPS Agreement and COVID-19”, Read

 

Encounter 6: Trademarks as a business tool towards a new rebound

October 2020

  • Calboli, I. and Sentfleben, M. (eds.) (2018) The Protection of Non-Traditional Trademarks, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Read
  • Calboli, I. and Ginsburg, Jane C. (eds.) (2020), The Cambridge handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Read
  • Curtis, L. and Platts R. (2019) “Alexa, “what’s the impact of AI on trademark law””, ManagingIP.com, May-June 2019, pp.43-47, Read
  • EUIPO, Trademarks and Geographical Indications: future Perspectives (Intermediate level), Read
  • Gangjee, D.S., “Eye, Robot: Artificial Intelligence and Trademark Registers” (2020), in Bruun, N., Dinwoodie, G., Levin, M. and Ohly, A. (Eds.), Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Read
  • Grynberg, M. (2019-2020), “AI and the “Death of Trademark””, Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 108, number 2, pp. 199-238, Read
  • Moerland, A. (2020) “New Trademark Uses in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Virtual and Augmented Realities”, in Heath, Ch., Kamperman-Sanders, A. and Moerland, A., Intellectual Property Law and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, AH Alphen aan den Rijn, Wolters Kluwer
  • WIPO, “World IP Day 2020 – Innovate for a Green Future: how trademarks can promote sustainability”, Read

 

Encounter 5: AI, Software, and Patents: Towards a Post COVID Changing Game

September 2020

  • European Commission (2020) White paper on Artificial Intelligence – A European Approach to excellence and trust, COM(2020) 65 final, Brussels, 19 February 2020, Read
  • European Patent Office (2018) Patenting Artificial Intelligence, Conference 30 May 2018, Programme, Summary and Video, Read
  • Gervais, D. (2019) “Exploring the interfaces Between Big Data and Intellectual Property Law”, JIPITEC, 10 (1) 2019, Read
  • Gervais, D (2020) “Is Intellectual Property Ready for Artificial Intelligence?”, GRUR International, Volume 69, Issue 2, February 2020, pp.117-118 (Editorial)
  • Lamlert, W (2020) “Problems of Patentability and Inventorship for Inventions created by Artificial intelligence”, International Journal of Knowledge Engineering, Vol.6, nº 1, June 2020, pp.1-5, Read
  • Shemtov, n (2019) A Study on inventorship in inventions involving AI activity, Commissioned by the European Patent Office, February 2019, 36 pp., Read
  • Silver, D. and others (2016) “Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search”, Nature, Vol. 529, 28 January 2016, Read
  • Strauss, J. (2020) “Artificial Intelligence – Challenges and Chances for Europe”, European Review, 2020, pp.1-17, Read

 

Encounter 4: IP arbitration in a digitally enhanced world

July 2020

  • WIPO arbitration, mediation and expert determination contract clauses: Read 
  • WIPO Internet domain name dispute resolution: Read

 

Encounter 3: International IP and access to pandemic treatments

June 2020

DISCOVERY

Suggested Readings

    • Research Data Alliance, RDA COVID-19 Guidelines and Recommendations, Read
    • Access to COVID-19 Tools (Act) Accelerator (24 April 2020), Read
    • Ed Silverman, The WHO launched a voluntary Covid-19 product pool. What happens next?, Stat News (29 March 2020), Read
    • Sarah Newey, WHO patent pool for potential Covid-19 products is ‘nonsense’, pharma leaders claim Big pharma fights to protect intellectual property and profit in coronavirus vaccine race, The Telegraph (29 May 2020), Read
    • World Intellectual Property Organization, COVID19 IP Policy Tracker Read

 

Additional Readings

    • Ana Santos Rutschman, The Intellectual Property of Vaccines: Takeaways from Recent Infectious Disease Outbreaks, 118 Mich. L. Rev. Online 170 (2020), Read
    • Ana Santos Rutschman, The Vaccine Race in the 21st Century, 61 Ariz. L. Rev. 729 (2019), Read
    • Amy Kapczynski, Order without Intellectual Property Law: Open Science in Influenza, 102 Cornell L. Rev. 1539 (2017), Read
    • Matthew Bultman, Pooling Patents to Speed Virus Treatments More Logical Than Easy, IP Law News (6 May 2020), Read

 

DISTRIBUTION

Suggested Readings

    • Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Access to Covid-19 Treatment and International Intellectual Property Protection (2020) Part 1 | Part 2
    • Rory Horner, The World Needs Pharmaceuticals From China and India to Beat Coronavirus, The Conversation, (2020) Read
    • James Krellenstein and Christopher J. Morten, The U.S. Government’s Apparent Co-Ownership of Patents Protecting Remdesivir (2020), Read

 

Additional Readings

    • Rochelle Dreyfuss and Susy Frankel, From Incentive to Commodity to Asset: How International Law is Reconceptualizing Intellectual Property, 36 Mich. J. Int’l L. 557 (2015), Read
    • WHO, WTO & WIPO – trilateral study (2013): Promoting Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation, Intersections between public health, intellectual property and trade, Read
    • UNAIDS & WHO & UNDP (2011), Using TRIPS Flexibilities to Improve Access to HIV Treatment Read
    • Oshitani H, Kamigaki T, Suzuki A., Major Issues and Challenges of Influenza Pandemic Preparedness in Developing Countries. 14 Emerg Infect Dis. 875 (2008), Read

 

Encounter 2: From West to East: Trade, IP and Investment

May 2020

Suggested Readings

  • Fink, C., (2011) “Intellectual Property Rights”, in J-P Chauffour, J-C Maur (Eds.), Preferential Trade Agreement Policies for Development: A Handbook, Chapter 18, Washington D.C., The World Bank, 2011, pp. 387-406, Read
  • Roffe,  X. Seuba (eds.) (2017), Current Alliances in International Intellectual Property Lawmaking: The Emergence and Impact of Mega-Regionals, Read
  • Valdés, R., Tavengwa, R. (2012) Intellectual property provisions in regional trade agreements, WTO Staff Working Paper ERSD-2012-21, WTO: Geneva, Read

 

Additional Readings

  • Abbot, F. M. (2006), Intellectual Property Provisions of Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements in Light of U.S. Federal Law, Geneva: ICTSD, Read
  • Burrell, R., and Weatherall, K. (2008), “Exporting controversy? Reactions to the copyright provisions of the US-Australia free trade agreement: Lessons for U.S. trade policy”, University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy, nº 2, 2008, pp. 259–319.
  • Drexl., J., Grosse Ruse-Khan, H., and Nadde-Phlix, S., (eds.) (2014), EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: For Better or Worse, Springer.
  • Kampf, R., (2007) “TRIPS and FTAs: A World of Preferential or Detrimental Relations?”, in C. Heath, A. Kamperman Sanders (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements, Hart Publishing, pp. 87-126.
  • Seuba, X. (2013), “Intellectual property in free trade agreements: What treaties, what content?”, The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2013, pp. 1–22, Read

 

See you soon!

We continue to persue the anwers we need to determine what the future of IP holds.

Visit the main website to find more info on future encounters.

Check out the Encounters

Spread the word!

#GlobalDigitalEncounters

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
Email

Contacto

Rellene el formulario y alguien de nuestro equipo se pondrá en contacto con usted brevemente.

Facebook Twitter Youtube