At the ‘Development of the IP systemin China’ lunch briefing yesterday,SIPO representatives provided an

in-depth look at the myriad IP policies thatChina is implementing and internationalcooperation that it is participating in as itembarks on a journey of growth driven byinnovation.

Through its national strategy, theChinese government has been improving IPpolicy, enforcement and awareness. “IP isthe bridge linking development and innova-tion and China has been putting resourcesinto safeguarding IP to drive innovation-leddevelopment and promote the growth ofindustries,” said He Zhimin, deputy com-missioner at SIPO.

In 2016, China ranked 22nd in WIPO’sGlobal Innovation Index rankings, sevenspots up from 2014. The country has beennumber one for seven consecutive years inthe number of patent applications filed.

At the international level, China is partyto 24 IP-related treaties and conventions,including the Paris Convention, MadridProtocol and Berne Convention. At the

Bioinformatics industry darlingZenTech has won a battle to protect itstrade secrets, following a data breach

of unknown proportions in its Silicon Valleyresearch centre. Following a trial yesterday infront of a large audience of AIPPI members,the company succeeded in its third attempt toobtain an injunction to restrain an employeewho, it alleged, took valuable information fromits servers and fled the country in a bid toobtain a generous salary from a rival.

ZenTech has grown dramatically in thedecade since its formation – over the last fiveyears it has obtained patents for more drugsthan any competitor and, despite its young age,is listed on the NASDAQ. A large part of thissuccess is built on innovative algorithms thatuse drug discovery pathways and big data ana-lytics to identify biomarkers. It is for this reasonthat the company strictly imposes securitymeasures on employees, such as monitoring itselectronic devices, keeping printing logs, digitalmonitoring and AI activity system reports.

The employee under scrutiny is Emilia

Reilly, a decorated MIT alumni who gainedseveral years of experience on the trading floorsof Wall Street before moving to California toresearch life sciences for ZenTech. Reillylogged into the network remotely after 11pmon the day of the breach, accessing 30 files thatwere above her security level and deleting a fur-ther 50. ZenTech’s AI security system auto-matically flagged this activity, and the nextmorning she did not come to work.

Reilly was also found to be sending emailsfrom her personal account, and activity on thisserver rose by 300%. It was at this point thatZenTech made its first, unsuccessful, attemptto bring an injunction against Reilly. JudgeKleinberg in California, who took the case, out-lined why this application failed the initialapplication. “The application in and of itself isnot unusual, however it seems to me to bequite general and speculative, there isn’tenough meat on the bones, it isn’t filled withenough facts, to make a decision.”

On this basis of insufficient information,the California court rejected the plaintiff’s call

for injunction, but requested that the compa-ny come back with further information – spe-cially requesting that it find out if the files inquestion were indeed trade secrets that couldbe used to damage the company.

“One of the areas that I would considergiving relief on an ex parte basis, is allowingthe party who is seeking recovery here to takediscovery,” he said. “Normally the plaintiff on

a case in California can’t take discovery rightaway, but in this instance I will permitZenTech to go ahead and issue subpoenasand make the deposition for Ms Reilly.”

Trade secrets are defined in TRIPs asprotection for information that “is secret inthe sense that it is not, as a body or in theprecise configuration and assembly of its

PUBLISHED BY

managingip.com

AIPPI CONGRESSNEWS

48TH WORLD IP CONGRESS, SYDNEY, MONDAY 16 OCTOBER 2017

WHERE TO EATRESTAURANTSSYDNEYSIDERS’FAVOURITE PLACES TO DINEPAGE 7

INTERVIEWLAURENT THIBON THE OUTGOINGSECRETARY GENERALPAGE 7

NEWS

GENE PATENTSPAGE 2

TWEETS

YOUR WORDS ANDIMAGES PAGE 2

NEWS

GIs AND AOsDEMYSTIFIED PAGE 3

PREVIEW

CII PATENTSPAGE 6

WHERE AND WHEN

TODAY’S SCHEDULEPAGE 8

TODAY’S WEATHER

WEATHER 22°C

ZenTech concludes employee data battle

China takesits place onIP worldstage

Continued on page 2

Continued on page 4

AIPPI delegates tackled the sensitivesubject of gene patenting in a resolu-tion debated yesterday. Introducing

the debate, Claire Baldock of Boult WadeTennant in the UK said that recent courtdecisions, notably the Myriad judgments inthe US and Australia, have called into ques-tion the patentability of isolated genes andgenetic material. In addition, there is a lackof harmonisation between jurisdictionsregarding the patentability of genetic materi-als, demonstrated by the inconsistent imple-mentation of the EU Biotech Directive.

She added that blanket exclusions frompatentability may be contrary to Article27(1) of the TRIPs Agreement, and may bea disincentive to conduct research in thisarea which could harm the development ofnew medicines.

For all these reasons, it was felt thatAIPPI should pass a resolution clearly stat-ing its position on gene patents. The resolu-tion was passed in yesterday’s PlenarySession with only a few amendments, andwill now go forward to Tuesday’s ExCo.

The resolution states that patentsshould be granted for inventions including“genes or parts thereof isolated fromnature” provided an application is identi-fied and other patentability criteria are met.It adds that genetic materials should not beregarded as inventions contrary to ordrepublic or morality, and that genetic material“isolated” from nature by a technicalprocess should not be treated as patentineligible for this reason alone.

Instead, isolated genetic material shouldbe treated for patent purposes as a chemicalcompound, and the scope of protection ofpatent claims should be comparable to thosedefining any other chemical compound.

The resolution urges governments toimplement legislation to meet these goalsand avoid measures that would apply a dif-ferent scope of protection to patent claims togenetic materials. However, language in theproposed resolution that would extend thislast recommendation to “the judiciary” wasremoved after the Singapore group arguedthat as a matter of principle AIPPI shouldnot pass resolutions that could be seen asseeking to interfere with the independenceof judges.

AIPPI offers guidanceon gene patents

national level, under its 13th five-year planannounced in 2016, a national IP protectionand utilisation plan was created. Morerecently, the State Council announced itsplan to strengthen actions against IPinfringement and counterfeiting.

Great leaps have been made to improveexisting laws, including the fourth amend-ment to the Patent Law, third amendment tothe Trademark Law and the third

amendment to the Copyright Law. Forpatents, proposed changes call for moreinternational cooperation, an increase inpunitive damages and protection targetingthe internet and industrial designs.

Amendments to the Trade Mark Lawpassed on May 1 2014 include an improve-ment to the registration system and stan-dardisation of the substantial criteria fortrade mark registration. Proposed changesto the Copyright Act focus on the

enlargement of scope of rights and punitivedamages.

Yuefeng He, deputy director general oflegal affairs at SIPO, outlined the proposedchanges to the Patent Law covering protec-tion, implementation, procedures, interna-tional participation and civil litigation lawadoption. One of the changes is to perfectthe rules of evidence for determining dam-ages compensation by transferring the bur-den of proof for determining the amount ofcompensation.

“It will move away from the principle ofwho claims-who proves, which is sometimesimpossible for the patentee, to one wherethe People’s Court could order the accusedinfringer to hand in account books andmaterials related to the infringement todetermine the amount of compensation,”said He.

Other changes include the rise in theamount of damages from RMB1 million($150,000) to RMB3 million. The amountof punitive damages for international patentinfringement may increase by two- to three-fold according to the seriousness, level andresult of the infringement. To enhance theexecution of binding judgments and deci-sions, additional fines will be in place forfailing to comply with administrativeactions.

Enforcement is key to policy implemen-

tation. Increasing damages, transparencyand efficiency are priority items for China.Examples of initiatives include the creationof fast track IP protection centres, a nationalpilot service for IP dispute arbitration andmediation and IP legal assistance to protectthe interests of rights holders.

“China has a comprehensive matrix net-work with horizontal and vertical synergiesthat are using top-down and bottom-upapproaches in enforcement,” said He. Atthe horizontal level, IP administrationcoordination is taking place between SIPOand the State Administration for Industry& Commerce, Ministry of Agriculture andother governmental agencies in charge ofpublic security and Customs. At the verticallevel, governments at the central, provin-cial, municipal and county levels are alsocooperating.

“Comprehensive, fast, equal and strictprotection is the aim and will be donethrough various protection channels ofadministrative and judicial enforcement, andefficient coordination in verification andexamination with all enterprises receivingequal protection,” said He.

As China embarks on ambitious projectssuch as the Belt and Road Initiative, its con-nections with the world will only continue togrow, as evidenced by its cooperation withWIPO, IP5, ID5 and of course AIPPI.

News

2 AIPPI CONGRESS NEWSMonday 16 October 2017

Euromoney Trading Limited8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX United KingdomTel: +44 20 7779 8682 Fax: +44 20 7779 8500 Email: mip@managingip.com

EDITORIAL TEAM Editor James Nurton Reporters John Crabb, Karry LaiPRODUCTIONProduction manager Luca Ercolani Web production editor Josh PasanisiADVERTISINGAsia manager Matthew Siumatthew.siu@euromoneyasia.com EMEA manager Nick Heathnheath@euromoneyplc.comProject manager Kevin Danskykevin.dansky@euromoneyny.comManaging Director, Legal Media GroupTim Wakefield

SUBSCRIPTION HOTLINE UK Tel: +44 20 7779 8999US Tel: +1 212 224 3570

Photography Alexander Mayes Photography

The AIPPI Congress News is produced byManaging Intellectual Property in associationwith the AIPPI. Printed by The SOS Print +Media Group. The AIPPI Congress News isalso available online at www.managingip.com.

© Euromoney Trading Limited 2017

No part of this publication may bereproduced without prior written permission.Opinions expressed in the AIPPI CongressNews do not necessarily represent those ofAIPPI or any of its members.

The resolution statesthat patents should begranted for inventionsincluding “genes or partsthereof isolated fromnature” provided anapplication is identifiedand other patentabilitycriteria are met

Continued from top of page 1

Ben Mitra-Kahn Panel at#AIPPI2017 had myself, @inteland @canonjp on big #data #AIand somehow we made it to

Capt. Picard & Data being sentient #Trekkie

Emmanuel Larere #AIPPI2017in Sydney French groupattending the Plenary Sessionon question related to

Quantification of Monetary Relief #IP #in

Luis Berenguer Special panelon IP in China at #AIPPI2017@AIPPI_ORG #SIPO

Sarah Morgan Panellistsdiscuss the ever-increasingimportance of trade secrets at#AIPPI2017. Enjoying the case

study! #tradesecrets #Sydney

TWEETS

Aresolution on requirements forprotection of geographical indica-tions (GIs) and appellations of

origin (AOs) was approved in a PlenarySession yesterday, and will now go for-ward to Tuesday’s ExCo meeting to beadopted.

The resolution defines GI and AO andestablishes the requirements for aregistration procedure. It also sets out thescope of protection, who can enforceGI/AO rights, what remedies should beavailable and the grounds for refusing orinvalidating a GI/AO. But a paragraph onthe burden of proof in invalidity/revocationproceedings was deleted following a vote.

There was extensive discussion, initiat-ed by a proposal from the French group,about the relationship between GIs/AOsand trade mark rights, and in particular

whether a trade mark should ever begranted for a product protected by aGI/AO.

The proposal to include a paragraphaddressing this issue was rejected, afterseveral groups argued that it was outsideof the scope of the question and requiredfurther study. Another paragraph regard-ing the inclusion of a GI/AO in a domainname was also deleted following a vote.

The French group also proposedincluding a sentence in the background tothe resolution stating: “This resolutiondoes not deal with the relationshipbetween GIs/AOs and trade marks anddomain names.” This was approved.

The relationship between trade marksand GIs was the subject of AIPPI resolu-tion 191, passed at the GothenburgCongress in 2006.

Resolution on GIs and AOs passedNews

AIPPI CONGRESS NEWSMonday 16 October 2017 3

According to the resolution, a GI isdefined as “an indication whichidentifies a good as originating in theterritory of a country, or a region orlocality in that territory, where a givenquality, reputation or othercharacteristic of the good is essentiallyattributable to its geographical origin”.

An AO is a special kind of GI whichis defined as “a geographicaldenomination of a country, region orlocality, which serves to designate aproduct originating therein, the qualityor other characteristics of which aredue exclusively or essentially to thegeographical environment, includingnatural or human factors”.

What’s the difference?

AIPPI members meet the locals at Saturday night’s Welcoming Reception

Concerns about pay-for-delay agree-ments in the pharmaceutical industryand FRAND licensing in the tele-

coms industry have led to scrutiny and litiga-tion concerning the intersection between com-petition and IP law. Where do you draw theline between encouraging creativity and limit-ing competition? This was the question dis-cussed by panellists at yesterday’s panel session“The business of IP-IP and competition”.

Annabelle Bennett, chancellor of BondUniversity and former judge of the FederalCourt of Australia, kicked off the discussion bytalking about Australia’s competition policyreview. The report found that IP inhibits accessto knowledge and is bad for competition. On apositive note, the government response hasnot accepted all of the recommendations andinstead stresses the need to strike a balancebetween promoting innovation and enhancingconsumer welfare, not just focusing on anti-monopoly rights.

However, one of the recommendations isto put in place an objects clause, which couldopen up a can of worms. “It will be applied byjudges, and looked to by lawyers in everypatent case that goes forward,” said Bennett. “Itaims to enhance the well-being of Australians:that sounds terrific, but in reality just imaginehow many cases need to be fought beforejudges to remove IP licences that previouslyexisted and need to be referred to the con-sumer watchdog to see if a commercial deci-sion is anti-competitive.”

As adopted technology becomes more pop-ular and widespread, the terms of licensingmay be too creative. “There has been somesoul searching on patents issued to improvethe quality of patents,” said DamianWasserbauer, of Wasserbauer Law. “The realproblem people are still struggling with thepatent ownership issue is that the fundamentalright of a patent is under extreme stress.” New

companies that become popular have the mar-ket power and do creative things. However,there is push back from popular sentiment aspeople change their minds on what they thinkshould be regulated.

“When substantial amounts of money arepaid to people, it smells fishy to a regulator,”said Christian Vollrath of the EU Commission.“Innovation can go in various ways and inmerger control cases where industries are moreconcentrated and if in the end, there are veryfew big fish in the pond, the incentive to inno-vate is just not as pronounced.”

“The devil is in the detail,” said Bennett.“Many licences only have one licence [agree-ment] for the whole world. This is a problemfor judges trying to determine the issues wheredifferent laws apply and it is impossible toenforce a judgment. People do forum shop.”Awareness raising and programmes on build-

ing respect for IP will be essential in an increas-ingly globalised world.

Technology adds another level of complex-ity to the IP and competition conversation,especially in policy-making. The internet ofthings and forced interoperability is an exam-ple of how the threshold of dominance may betriggered. “As long as there’s no dominance,you can do as you like for competition law,”said Bennett. “The challenge is drafting a pieceof law that is fixed in time and you find that assoon as it is set in stone, the technologychanges. You think you’ve got brand new ter-minology but it’s become old hat in 12 months.How does law keep up with technology?”

“In the US, we still haven’t got data privacylaws that have much teeth,” said Wasserbauer.“The government is going to give somethought to the man-machine interface becausethe laws just aren’t there.”

Graphical user interfaces – which usea combination of icons, movingimages and text on screens – have

become ubiquitous for today’s consumers,and are familiar on computers, smartphones,gaming devices and other electronic equip-ment. Many GUIs are distinctive, originaland inventive – but should they be pro-tectable by IP rights, and if so which ones?

That is the Study Question being debatedtoday, and Assistant Reporter GeneralYusuke Inui says the 39 reports receivedfrom groups and individuals tended to givehigh-level rather than in-depth responses:“It’s much more difficult to reach consensusabout specific requirements for GUIs.”

The groups were asked to comment onwhether GUIs should be protected bypatents, design rights, copyright, trade marksor sui generis rights.

Of these options, design rights seem to beregarded as the most appropriate, says Inui:“The current trend is that the appearanceshould be protected by design rights. Somecountries have not yet adapted but that is thegeneral trend.” About 90% of groups believethat screen movements or transitions in a

GUI should be protectable by design rights.Regarding patents, there was consensus

that GUIs as such should not be protectable,but that aspects of GUIs may be protectable.As Inui says: “Each group had a differentexpression as to how GUIs should be patent-ed.” About 70% of groups said that the crite-ria should be whether there is a technicaleffect, or a technical solution to a technicalproblem. There was no majority view onwhether and how involvement of user’smental activities should affect patentability:half the groups said it should not be affected.

Copyright and trade marks also have arole to play: 90% of groups thought GUIsshould be protectable by the former, and80% by the latter. However, there was lessagreement on the details, such as whetherthe overall look and feel should be protectedby copyright, or whether trade marks forGUIs require secondary meaning to beshown.

Finally, there was a consensus that thereshould not be a sui generis right for protect-ing GUIs, said Inui: “It’s quite difficult toimagine what would be appropriate. Andwhy would we need another right?”

components, generally known among orreadily accessible to persons within the cir-cles that normally deal with the kind ofinformation in question”.

Following this initial request being turneddown, ZenTech made a second attempt, butquickly discovered that Reilly, an Australiannational, had left the US and made her waythrough Germany and back to her nativecountry. IT forensics also discovered that thedeleted files were way beyond the scope ofher research, and that she had been using herpersonal account to contact head hunters.This was exposed by using ‘key logs’ to mon-itor activity, something the company had notpreviously disclosed to the court.

Presiding Judge Mattias Zigann of theRegional Court of Munich, who heardZenTech’s case in Germany, said that thismeant that Reilly must be informed shewas under suspicion.

“The key log is a major problem becausewe were not informed in the first applica-tion, and we have a clear case that using keylogs is only permissible if you have completesuspicion that the employee has committeda crime,” he said. “This will outrule any deci-sion ex parte, because the plaintiff hasunclean hands and presents non-permissi-ble and illegally obtained evidence.”

Following the second case being dis-missed on this ground, Reilly was informed ofthe motion to get an injunction and the casewent to trial in Australia, focusing on tradesecrets. In the trial, Reilly confirmed she hadleft ZenTech to join life sciences companyRBS in Sydney for a significantly highersalary, and that she had shared certain infor-mation with the scientific team in the process.

ZenTech claimed that Reilly accessedfiles not within the scope of her work, withthe aim of knowing information notalready known that was not already in thepublic domain. The company sought a fur-ther injunction to restrain Reilly fromusing any of the information related to thespecific research techniques or identifiedcriminal targets.

The response from Reilly was that she wasusing the information to improve her ownskillset, that the information had beenknown, that it was not confidential, and that itwas in the public interest. A combination ofknown parts cannot be sufficiently confiden-tial to warrant an injunction, she said.

Justice David Yates of the Federal Courtof Australia, who presided over the trial,stressed the importance of asking whetherthe combination is confidential. “The factthat the confidential information consistsonly of a combination of things that areindividually within the public domain isrelevant, but for me the central question iswhether the combination is confidential,”he said to the court.

“I don’t think anyone’s focus should bediverted from the fact that she has dishonest-ly used confidential information for her ownbenefit, and for the benefit of her newemployer,” said Yates. “That is an unconsci-entious use of confidential information thatshould be restrained.”

The case of ZenTech vs Reilly is fictional. Itwas debated in yesterday’s panel session “Thebest kept (trade) secret: a real life scenario

Getting to grips with GUIs

4 AIPPI CONGRESS NEWSMonday 16 October 2017

Preview

Apple sued Samsung for infringement ofits GUI design patents

Abusive or creative?

Continued from bottom of page 1

David Ruschke, Chief Judge of the PTAB, was among speakers discussing thelatest developments in post-grant proceedings around the world yesterdayafternoon. Other panellists included Victor Portelli of IP Australia and ShintaroTakahara of the Japan Patent Office

One of this year’s study questionswill tackle the controversial issueof the patentability of computer

implemented inventions (CII). The issuewas addressed in 2001 in a resolution on“Patentability of Business Methods”, inMelbourne. This resolution was affirmed in“Computer Software, InformationNetworks, Artificial Intelligence andIntegrated Circuits” in 2003 in Lucerne.This resolved that “computer-implementedinventions should be eligible for patent pro-tection and should not be treated morerestrictively than other inventions”.

Most recently, the AIPPI StandingCommittee on Information Technology andInternet issued a report on CII in 2016. Thisset out the different approaches to patentabili-ty in various jurisdictions, and showed anurgent need for harmonisation in the field ofpatentability of CII. The report suggestedworldwide consensus exists that patentability

of an invention should not be denied purely onthe basis that it involves the use of a computer.

This study question will build on this, andexplore whether agreement is possible onharmonised rules around patentability.Forty-four reports were received.

The practices of the USPTO and theEPO suggest that AIPPI’s position in its pre-vious resolutions on CII has failed to materi-alise. “AIPPI has in the past taken quite radi-cal positions which are not in line – or actu-ally directly in conflict – with what the EPOis doing for quite some while now. It is alsonot matching current US practice,” saidAssistant Reporter General Ralph Nack.

The most prominent recent CII develop-ment is the fallout of the US SupremeCourt’s Alice v CLS Bank ruling in the US in2014. This restricted the patenting ofabstract ideas, and resulted in the invalida-tion of many computer-related patents.

The ruling annoyed US patent owners, but

it actually brought the US more in line withEurope. Alice requires that a patentable com-puter-related invention comprise “significant-ly more” than an abstract idea. Europeanpractice has been consistent about thepatentability of CII since the early 2000s, andis relatively strict about what can be patented.

Under EPO practice, a computer-relatedinvention must make a non-obvious contri-bution to the state of the art in the field of“technology”. The 2004 decision of theEnlarged Board of Appeal in G3/082 estab-lished that the EPO applies a modifiedinventive step test under Article 56 EPC,according to which only those features thatcontribute to the technical character of theinvention are considered when assessinginventive step. A solution in a non-technicalfield such as insurance mathematics wouldfail to serve as the basis of an inventive stepunder Article 56 EPC. “This practice clearlycontradicts the position of AIPPI as stated in

the Resolutions on Q133 and Q158,”according to the guidelines for this question.

Nack said Alice is “terribly worded”. Headds: “But the US practice, accepting all thedeficits in the wording of the Alice and post-Alice doctrines, is pretty close to what theEPO does in much nicer words. The aim forAIPPI is to show that behind these ill-con-ceived words there is something which isreally valuable and which is actually in linewith the current EPO practice.”

Elsewhere, the situation varies. Japan andAustralia, for example, have traditionallybeen less strict. However, the debate aboutthe patentability of software and businessmethods in Australia has taken a harder linerecently. “Asia is a different issue,” saidNack. “The idea behind this study questionis to show whether or not, irrespective of allthe different wordings of doctrines, thereisn’t actually a consensus between Europeand the US. I think there is.”

Calling for consensus on computers

Video sharing company YouTubeshould stop taking advantage of safeharbour laws and pay its fair share to

the music industry, if it is to successfully closethe value gap between those making moneyand those providing the content. That wasthe message given by panellists in yesterday’ssecond session “On a different note – copy-right and music”.

Panellist Ingrida Veiksa presented one ofthe conclusions of a recent IFPI Survey high-lighting the gulf in revenue that the musicindustry receives from its two biggest con-tributors Spotify and YouTube. Statisticssuggest that YouTube is the world’s largeston demand music service with 900 millionusers, but returns are only around $550 mil-lion per year. Compared to that Spotify,Deezer and Apple Music are much smaller,with only 212 million combined users, butreturn to rights holders is around $3.9 billion.

This is calculated as $20 per user forSpotify et al, while YouTube pays less than$1 per user. “It creates a value gap, defined as‘the value of the mismatch between the valueof users of those services and the revenue

return of those who invest to create it,’” shesaid. “That is the biggest stretch to the sus-tainability of the music industry.”

“Safe harbour is a defence to a claim ofinfringement of copyright, and was meant toreflect, like the telephone services, that ifsomeone does something illegal over yournetwork that you should not be held respon-sible,” said Dan Rosen, CEO of theAustralian Recording Industry Association(ARIA). Safe harbour provisions are part ofthe Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998,which aimed to encourage the developmentof the internet while also protecting rightsholders.

“YouTube is different because it is essen-tially a business now that is selling advertisingagainst this content,” he added. “You are nothaving real negotiation because you don’thave the ability to stop your content frombeing uploaded.”

“The only basis for which Spotify will pay(licensing rights) is because without thoserights it doesn’t have a service, whileYouTube, which has a service regardless, hasthe benefit of safe harbour.”

Lisa Margolis of Warner Bros said thatYouTube claims that payments are morethan the IRS claims. “Hopefully somebodycan find a solution,” she said. “YouTubeshould increase the rates that is paying, thereis a lot of pressure on them in the US to dothat.”

Margolis cited a recent success whereYouTube had a service that allowed users torip the masters from videos and load themonto their smartphones, but the IRS suedand they agreed to dismantle that site com-pletely: “There has been some progress, butthere still needs to be more.”

Safe Harbour or Pirate Bay?

Preview

6 AIPPI CONGRESS NEWSMonday 16 October 2017

13th Fl., 27 Sec. 3, Chung San N. Rd., Taipei 104, Taiwan, R.O.C.Tel: 886-2-25856688 Fax: 886-2-25989900/25978989Email: email@deepnfar.com.tw www.deepnfar.com.tw

ProsecutionInfringementLitigationIP

Coffee break in the AIPPI Exhibition yesterday. You can visit today from 09:00 to18:00 and tomorrow from 09:00 to 16:00

Anyone who has attended an AIPPIevent for at least the past decadeknows Laurent Thibon. His calming

presence at the podium during ExCo meet-ings, combined with his distinctive laugh andfamous moustache (first grown, he says,nearly 30 years ago) ensure that even if youhave never spoken to him, you almost cer-tainly know who he is.

After seven years on the Bureau, though,Thibon says he is looking forward to return-ing to “anonymity” at the next AIPPICongress. His role as Secretary General – avoluntary position, but one that takes upmany hours time – comes to an end thisweek.

Over the past three years in particular,Thibon has overseen big changes in the wayAIPPI is run. “We have helped the GeneralSecretariat to double in size since 2015 andto take on more and more operationalduties, particularly concerning theCongress,” he says. “Once we moved toannual Congresses it became very clear thatthe workload is too heavy for one person tobear.”

While the changes approved at the RioCongress in 2015 have now mostly beenimplemented, Thibon says “there is stillmore work to be done” by his successorand other members of the Bureau, in par-ticular regarding how the Bureau,Executive Director and General Secretariatwork together, and the role played by thestatutory committees. “My period asSecretary General was mainly one of tran-sition,” he says. “The role is now very clear-ly to focus on the members and nationalgroups, while the Executive Director andhis staff take care of the operation of theassociation.”

But Thibon will leave his successors todecide exactly how future changes will beimplemented. “It’s good to have rotation, andI think new people will bring in new ideas andwill be positive for the organisation,” he says.Meanwhile, he hopes he will have a bit moretime for “other activities, such as gardening”.

New national groupsAs well as the internal improvements, thepast few years have seen further growth for

AIPPI. On Saturday the ExCo approved thecreation of a national group for the UAE,which followed the launch of a Jordan grouplast year. “It is important for AIPPI to bepresent throughout the world,” says Thibon.“We have grown significantly in Asia, andnow we are seeing very positive develop-ments in the Middle East. I think the nextstep should be to raise our profile in Africa.”

“It is complex to launch these newgroups, and it has been a great source of

satisfaction for me to see them grow,” saysThibon. “As a principle, I think it’s impor-tant for AIPPI to be present everywhere tofulfil our global representative role.”

This is demonstrated in the locations ofthe Congresses, with more new venues beingproposed by national groups to host AIPPICongresses in the coming years. Thibonviews this as a positive result of the recentrule changes in the responsibilities related toorganising the Congress.

A decade of change for AIPPIInterview

AIPPI CONGRESS NEWSMonday 16 October 2017 7

Laurent Thibon is stepping down this week after serving for four years as Deputy Secretary General and three yearsas Secretary General of AIPPI. He reflects on the changes he has seen in conversation with James Nurton

Australian citizens used to suffer fromculinary stereotyping: lazily peddledassumptions of Fosters swilling,

Vegemite devouring masses were de rigeurfor much of the twentieth century.

But some point around the turn of the mil-lennium, attitudes started to change. And it’seasy to see why. Spend a few days in Sydneyand it is clear that this is a city that takes itsfood seriously. Its close proximity to Asiameans delegates can find some of the world’sbest dishes here, and the local chefs love toput their own touches on such fusion dishes.

We asked a couple of locals what theywould recommend, what the most Sydney-esque culinary experience that someone intown for a few days could have. The consen-sus was a beachside brunch on the wonderfulBondi Beach; throw on some boardies and a

pair of thongs, and head to Speedo’s Café orThe Depot for a great cup of coffee andbreakfast at lunchtime.

For those that like to wear more pedestri-an shoes while they eat, Sydney still has plen-ty to offer. A few of the more upmarketrestaurants for those looking to try some-thing special are ARIA, Quay and Tetsuya,all of which come highly recommended.Alternatively head to Sepia in DarlingHarbour for a nine course meal with offer-ings including sansho roasted duck breastand seared Rottnest Island scallops.

Not everyone’s expense account willstretch to scallops. Besides, you might simplywant an Aussie meat pie and a sampling ofone of Australia’s bestselling beers, VictoriaBitter. For this, find your way down toHarry’s Café de Wheels at Wooloomooloo

(yes, that’s eight Os), where your pie comescomplete with mash and peas.

Head to Potts Point for some excellentAsian fusion food. For Japanese, Cho ChoSan comes highly recommended, Mr G’soffers a wonderful modern experience, andBilly Kwong is Chinese-Australian fusionbrought to you by renowned head chef KylieKwong.

Hipsters among the delegation lookingfor a taste of what Sydney has to offer needlook no further than Surry Hills’ stylish caféscene. Just south of Hyde Park is reminiscentof Williamsburg in Brooklyn – and has foodto match. There is plenty of choice: ViaNapoli provides some of the best pizza intown, and the wagyu skirt steak at Porteñois legendary in its own right.

From pies and mash to Bondi brunches and Asianfusion, Sydney has it all. And not a warm can of Fosters

Dining out in Sydney

07.30-08.30 RGT, PC, SCs Leadership Breakfast C3.6

09.00-12.30 Plenary Session: Study Question Patentability of computer implemented inventions Cockle Bay Room 1+2

09.00-10.30 Pharma 1: Sufficiently plausible? C3.4 + 3.5

09.00-10.30 Panel Session VII: On the ball – IP and sport C3.3

10.30-11.00 Coffee break The Gallery

11.00-12.30 Pharma 2: Injunctions: innovator vs innovator C3.4 + 3.5

11.00-12.30 Panel Session VIII: Partial designs – full protection? C3.3

12.30-13.30 Lunch Briefing: Recent developments at the EPO Parkside Ballroom 1

12.30-13.30 Networking Lunch Grand Ballroom

14.00-17.30 Plenary Session: Study Question Protection of graphical user interfaces Cockle Bay Room 1+2

14.00-15.30 Pharma 3: Medical devices and patents C3.4 + 3.5

14.00-15.30 Panel Session IX: Morality and public order in trademarks C3.3

15.30-16.00 Coffee break The Gallery

16.00-17.30 Pharma 4: Digital health C3.4 + 3.5

16.00-17.30 Panel Session X: The middleman – intermediary liability C3.3

TODAY’SSCHEDULE

MONDAY 16 OCTOBER 2017