Simon Tam, founder of The Slants,gave a gripping account of his battle toregister a US trade mark in yesterday’s

panel on “Funny, bad taste or out of order?Morality and public order in trademarks”.Recounting how he started The Slants rockband to fight prejudice and injustice, Tamsaid he never dreamed that he would alsoend up changing US trade mark law.The Slants’ fight took them from per-

formances in US prisons to the USPTO, theFederal Circuit and ultimately the SupremeCourt – where the whole band attended thehearing. In a unanimous opinion earlier thisyear, the eight justices upheld Tam’s caseand ruled that the “disparaging” exception inthe Lanham Act contravened the FirstAmendment.For Tam, the case was always about

reclaiming the language of racial stereotyp-ing, something to which the band has beencommitted since its foundation. “Think howyou can shape the world by changing theprocess, changing your perspective. I neverimagined that starting a rock band calledThe Slants would change IP law, but I knewwe would need to change the process tochange our world,” he said to an attentiveaudience, adding that the key to succeedingat the Supreme Court was that: “I neverapproached this as an attorney. I approachedit as an activist.”The Matal v Tam decision will lead to

changes to USPTO practice, though the full

ramifications are not yet clear. Other panel-lists in yesterday’s session discussed howAustralia, China and Europe approach moralrestrictions on trade mark registrations. Mark Metzeling of IP Gateway said that

“offensive” marks will be refused inAustralia, including terms that suggest racialvilification, religious intolerance and person-al abuse. Discussing Tam’s case, he said hehoped the word “slants” would not be seenas offensive in Australia today: “I actuallydon’t think there would be any objection toan application for The Slants.”Qiang Ma of JunHe described the cate-

gories of marks that are not eligible for regis-tration in China, including marks incorpo-rating country names.Speaking to Tam, Luis Berenguer of

EUIPO said: “I’m the bad guy. We are theones who refuse trade mark applications!”But he said the Office faces difficult deci-sions, especially given that it works in severallanguages, and has to take into account cul-tures and legal traditions in 28 countries.Cases that have come before the Officeinclude applications for the marks ScrewYou, Paki, Bin Ladin, Baghdad CountryClub, Not Made in China, Labellamafia andHijo de Puta.“If you’re easily offended, leave now.”

That was the warning Shane Smyth of FRKelly gave to the audience at the start of thesession. But once Tam started speaking, noone moved.

The European Patent Office (EPO)faces a number of challenges in thecoming years, said Niclas Morey,

Director at the Office, who was standing in forEPO President Benoît Battistelli at yester-day’s lunch briefing. These include the consis-tent growth in demand for patents, a morecompetitive environment, meeting users’expectations, improving efficiency, timelinessand costs and increasing global influence. Morey said the Office values user feed-

back, and is pleased to have a 96% satisfac-tion rating: “We seek to be the global bench-mark in quality.” He said its efficiency targetsare built around three “magic numbers” – six(months to search and written opinion); 12(months to conclude examination); and 15(months to opposition decision). While it ismeeting the first target, there is work to doon the latter two.

He added that efficiency gains meanpatent grants are up 11.5% this year, andthe stock of unexamined patents has beenreduced by 25%. The Office already makesextensive use of artificial intelligence, forexample in machine translation and initialclassification, and is consulting with userson extending the use of AI. It also wants toencourage applicants to file using theXML format, which will improve both effi-ciency and accuracy. Financial incentivesfor using XML are due to come into effectnext April.Morey took a number of questions from

the audience on topics such as internationalcooperation, efficiency and the expansion ofthe EPO. But he declined the opportunity tocomment in detail on the Unitary Patent,pointing the audience to today’s lunch panelon Brexit and the UPC instead.

PUBLISHED BY

managingip.com

AIPPI CONGRESSNEWS

48TH WORLD IP CONGRESS, SYDNEY, TUESDAY 17 OCTOBER 2017

NETWORKINGRECEPTIONSPHOTOS FROM SOMERECEPTIONS HELDDURING THE CONGRESSPAGE 7

INTERVIEWSARAH MATHESONWHAT’S NEXT FOR AIPPIPAGE 7

NEWS

IP AND SPORTPAGE 2

TWEETS

YOUR WORDS ANDPHOTOS PAGE 2

PREVIEW

BAD FAITH TMsPAGE 4

VOX POP

SYDNEY HITSPAGE 6

WHERE AND WHEN

TODAY’S SCHEDULEPAGE 8

TODAY’S WEATHER

WEATHER 22°C

Tam’s trade mark tale

EPO answersyour questions

CLOSING DINNER AND PARTY

LUNA PARK SYDNEY, TUESDAY 8PM TO 2AM

How to get there:18:30 Depart Convention Wharf just outside the ICC18:45 Depart Casino Wharf, just opposite steps of

The Star Casino19:00 Depart Pier 26 Darling Harbour, just in front

of SEALIFE Sydney

This year’s Congress will climax at the fabulous Luna Park. An Australian iconin its own right, Luna Park offers unfettered views of the Sydney HarbourBridge and the Opera House. After the night kicks off with a short boat tripthrough the harbour, you will have a chance to explore the park while enjoyinga champagne reception. Try your luck and win prizes in one of many games,enjoy the dodgems with a friend and have a spin on the Waltzers. After a fullGala Dinner relax and enjoy the entertainment and party into the night.

Modern sport is big business, andlike all big business it needsmoney to function. IP acts as the

lifeblood of sports, and it is essential to pro-tect the players, teams, events, sponsors andbroadcasters that bring it to life, according topanellists at yesterday’s opening session, ‘Onthe ball – IP & sport’.The speakers, who are involved in

upcoming sporting events including theGold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Gamesand the 2020 Summer Olympics, outlinedthe importance of protection and some ofthe problems that they have faced.Paula Robinson, who is the general coun-

sel of the Gold Coast CommonwealthGames and a partner at MinterEllison, asponsor of the event, attested to the impor-tance of protecting the rights to sportingevents from both perspectives. “With mysponsor hat on I want to make sure that themoney I've invested is returned and I don’twant to see any of my competitors gettingvalue from an event that I have actually paidto associate with.”

The games, she pointed out, are predom-inantly funded from a public purse (stategovernment funding) but $200 million hasto be sought by commercial buyers, meaningbroadcasting, ticketing, sponsorship andlicensing: “Anything that puts that in jeop-ardy is quite problematic, it is a very toughmarket at the moment.”

Ex-Olympian, private practice lawyer andcurrent legal counsel of the AustralianOlympic Committee, Annabelle Williams,added that one area that has been a serioussource of contention is the InternationalOlympic Committee’s (IOC’s) Rule 40,which is in place to prevent the Olympicsfrom being over-commercialised by instill-ing a black out period (from nine days priorto three days after the event) for any form ofnon-official advertising.“It is very hard to make sure that we

have a very consistent approach for compa-nies and that our response to breaches isproportionate,” she said. Williams gave the

example of a situation in 2014 in Sochi,where a snow field congratulated an athletewho had won a gold medal, and the IOC’sheavy handed response with a harshlyworded letter of demand ended up on thefront pages.“Ski fields invest a huge amount of money

in those athletes in the period leading up tothe games but in this black out period theyare not allowed to associate at all,” she said.“We have had to rejig our process to makesure that companies that really do invest a lotof time and energy in athletes have somewiggle room in terms of associating withthem.”

An Olympic challengeNews

2 AIPPI CONGRESS NEWS Tuesday 17 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.

Photo: A

dam.J.

W.C

.

Dunstan Barnes Simon Tam! Asintelligent and articulate as ever.A pleasure to hear him speak.#theslants #thebandwhomustnot

benamed #AIPPI2017 @SimonTheTam

Victor Portelli Question time for the EPO. #AIPPI2017#IPAUSTRALIA

Annsley Merelle Ward The@AIPPI_ORG #UPC CommitteeLeadership team (save forMark) meeting this AM to

discuss our exciting work for this comingyear #AIPPI2017

Bea Koempel-Thomas#AIPPI2017#AIPPI_ORG@SimonTheTam speaking on alitigant's experience in

trademark litigation and the story of@TheSlants.

TWEETS

“I don’t want to see any of my competitors gettingvalue from an event that I have actually paid toassociate with”

Should courts take a differentapproach to permanent injunctionsin cases where the defendant is pro-

ducing an innovative drug, rather than ageneric copy? That was the question debat-ed in an interactive panel discussion yester-day.The panel took as their starting point

the US case Amgen v Sanofi & Regeneron,where an injunction was ordered by thedistrict court, but stayed pending appeal.The first instance judge weighed up thefour factors set out in eBay v MercExchangeregarding when injunctions can be granted.But just last week the Federal Circuit over-turned the injunction, saying the districtcourt had misapplied the “public interest”test in eBay. The case has now been sentback for retrial.

“In a case with two innovators, shouldthe rules be the same? Should a permanentinjunction be available?” asked moderatorPeter Ludwig of Fish & Richardson. Thespeakers provided responses spanningAustralia, Germany and the US.“To grant in injunction in Germany, we

need prima facie evidence of infringement,a preliminary opinion on validity andurgency. All patent owners are treatedequally … public interest does not play arole,” said Judge Matthias Zigann,Presiding Judge of the Munich RegionalCourt (pictured). He added that a patentowner has the right to injunctive relief, sothere have to be specific reasons not togrant an injunction. Australia takes a similar approach, and

the default position is that an injunctionwill be granted, said Philip Kerr of Allens.“Delay can be a factor which the courtwould take into account in refusing togrant an injunction. Permanent injunc-tions are granted almost as a matter ofcourse.”But Larry Welch of Eli Lilly said that in

the US the situation is the opposite, andinjunctions are only granted in exceptionalcases. In Amgen v Sandoz, the FederalCircuit said that just eliminating a choiceof drugs is not, by itself, sufficient to dis-serve the public interest. “By definition,

the public interest is not disserved bykeeping a generic off the market,” whereasit is in the case of a new drug, explainedWelch.The panel also discussed the granting of

compulsory licences (as has happenedrecently in Germany) and what constitutesthe public interest. “In my view, Parliamentshould ultimately weigh up the interests of

the patent owner and the public interest,”said Zigann. “I agree – that’s not some-thing the courts are especially equipped todeal with. Parliament presents a forumwhere people not involved in private litiga-tion can have their views heard,” said Kerr.A paper on patent/patient rights preparedby the Pharmaceutical Committee is dueto be published by AIPPI soon.

Rewriting the rules on injunctionsNews

AIPPI CONGRESS NEWS Tuesday 17 October 2017 3

“In a case with twoinnovators, should therules be the same?Should a permanentinjunction be available?”

Patentability, data privacy and themerging with internet of things, arti-ficial intelligence and nanotechnolo-

gy are just some of the challenges affectingmedical devices and pharmaceutical compa-nies. In-house and private practice practicepanelists discussed them at yesterday’s ses-sion “Medical devices and patents – a shot inthe arm for pharma?”.The combined devices industry is a

booming market that has jumped in valuefrom a $66 billion to $178 billion in the pastfive years. EPO data shows that medicaltechnology is among the top 10 technicalfields of technology for patent applications.“Businesses will need to think about their

lifecycle strategies, both on the patentingand regulatory side, in their portfolio plan-ning in relation to patentability and data pri-vacy,” said Michelle Pratt, partner at BoultWade Tennant in the UK. The EPO is devel-oping case law on obtaining patent protec-tion for medical devices with a new medicaluse. It requires that there is an active ingredi-ent, a product is consumed during treat-ment, that the device must be a finishedproduct and must be in contact with a per-son’s body. “Mechanical and electrical engineers

working on devices will need to understandhow drugs work,” said Derek Minihane ofCochlear in Australia. “Internal expertise will

need to be built and will involve more workwith third parties.”Wearable technology is an area that

brings up the issue of data privacy. For exam-ple, what are the issues that arise when doc-tors can access smart hearing aids that con-nect with smartphones and pain reliefdevices connected to phones that give elec-tric stimulation? What about the data hostedby the device maker? These questions giverise to the importance of protecting dataadequately. Medtronic’s portable insulationpumps made headlines that raised concernsover the possibility that devices could behacked and a lethal dose of insulin could beadministered if the app is hacked. In Europe, the General Data Protection

Regulation coming in May 2018 will resultin big changes to how data is handled.“Storing data will count as data processingand it doesn’t matter if the data is processedoutside Europe, it will still be counted,” saidDominic Adair, partner at Bristows in theUK. The Regulation increases the responsi-bility of data handlers to put in complianceprogrammes to demonstrate that they aretaking responsibility on privacy impactassessments, training programmes, andreporting mechanisms for breaches, whichneed to be reported within 72 hours.Perhaps building in encryption systems intothe design of devices as safeguards will be

necessary. Liability for those found to be inbreach could be up a fine of up to 4% of glob-al revenue. Companies will need to increase their

resources on medical devices as they cometo grips with the Europe Medical DevicesRegulation that came in on May 25. Theemphasis of the Regulation is on safety anddata. Strengthening of requirements includethe increase in the number of classes andtypes of medical devices included. For exam-ple, cosmetic laser products and colour con-tact lenses are now included whereas theyweren’t before. Other issues include trace-ability, identification on devices, and collect-ing clinical data.These are items companies will need to

consider as they face unannounced auditsand submission of data to a centralisedEuropean database. Liability will alsoincrease for authorised representatives atmedical device companies. Insurance coverwill be mandatory for these representatives. “Questions companies need to ask are:

Do I need enhanced data? Is my deviceincluded? Do I need to design in changesto my device?” said Adair. “Another ques-tion is: what about for devices that arealready in the market, even though it mayraise the ethical questions of whether fur-ther clinical trials are just done to tick a boxfor regulation.”

There are at least three types of trademarks that can in some circum-stances be described as “bad faith”

applications. The first, and most common, iswhere someone applies to register a trademark that is identical or confusingly similarto another person’s mark registered in otherjurisdictions – a practice that is commonlyseen in emerging markets, but also seen else-where. The second is the repeat filing of sim-ilar or identical applications by a trade markowner and the third is the filing of defensiveapplications, which are not genuinely usedand can obstruct third parties. The 46 reports received from AIPPI

groups in response to this topic reveal differ-ent approaches to the first question com-pared to the other two. The vast majority(95%) of groups said their current law pro-vides for an action against anapplication/registration where the mark is

already used in one or more jurisdictions byanother party, and 80% of those said the lawdefines such applications as “bad faith”.But when it comes to repeat filings, 65%

of groups said the filing of a trade mark thatis identical or similar to a trade mark alreadyowned cannot be refused or cancelled on theground that the previous mark fails to meetgenuine use requirements. And the answerssuggest the case law is far from settled.Similarly, 80% of groups reported that it ispermissible to file a trade mark if the ownerhas no intent to use that mark for part or allof the goods/services covered. “Bad faith is treated differently around

the world, with different criteria used, andthere is insufficient guidance,” says AIPPIDeputy Reporter General Anne MarieVerschuur. “That lack of predictability hasbecome more problematic over the yearsthanks to globalisation and the internet.”

She added that, while there was consen-sus that action should be taken in the firsttype of case, different legal traditionsapproach the second and third types in dif-ferent ways: “If you have an intent-to-userequirement in your legislation, you will lookat that differently. I expect some debate onthat.”An important jurisdiction with an

intent-to-use requirement is the UnitedStates, but Verschuur added that evenwithin the EU, the law is not fully har-monised in all aspects in this area. Onequestion that divides groups is whether itshould be possible to invoke bad faithbefore IP offices, as well as in court.Verschuur expects some lively discussion,and a lengthy draft resolution. “We need toremember that AIPPI resolutions are notabout what the current law is but what itaspires to be,” she added.

The concept of “plausibility” is crop-ping up more and more in validitychallenges in pharmaceutical

cases, and panellists in a session yesterdayexplained why. “The idea is that oneshouldn’t just sit in an armchair withoutdoing any research and be able to make aclaim not knowing whether it would work,”explained Dominic Adair, a partner atBristows in the UK. “Very little is self-evi-dent in the pharmaceutical industry espe-cially in relation to secondary medical use.”The idea of plausibility is largely absent

from legislation, including TRIPs, the PCTand national laws. While the UK courtshave tended to follow the EPO, they are notin perfect step. “More than ‘not incredible’is required,” said Adair. “There must besome real reason for supposing that thestatement is true.” “The Canadian courts have been admit-

tedly confused,” said Charles Boulakia,partner at Ridout & Maybee. “In manycases, the utility and disclosure require-

ments are conflated.” In Canada, the factorsaffecting the sufficiency of disclosurethreshold include: what is the invention andhow does it work? “It is a confusing test –you start out everything in disclosure, butwho is reading disclosure?” asked Boulakia.“How does one express an invention in away that enables a skilled person in the artto successfully produce it using only theinstructions contained in the disclosure?”The 2017 Astra Zeneca v Apotex case hascompletely changed the way of readingspecifications but it is a fantastic thing forinnovators, added Boulakia. But despite the recent rush of cases on

this topic, many questions remain. Forexample: Does a one size fit all approachwork? Does the plausibility thresholdchange according to the invention? Forinstance, is the threshold lower if it is a life-saving drug that will help patients faster?How does plausibility apply to embodi-ments within the claim’s scope weren’t fore-seen at the time of filing? In the US, the pending Amgen v Sanofi

litigation will have implications for anti-body sequences and detailed methods ofscreening. “Licensees will need to re-evalu-ate licences for their portfolios,” saidMichele Wales, principal at InHouse PatentCounsel, US. “The USPTO will probablyissue guidance within the next month. Forbig pharma, it will be fine, but for the startupat the university that wants to do a spinout,it would need to raise investor money inorder to write an application.”

Is there a place for bad faith?

4 AIPPI CONGRESS NEWS Tuesday 17 October 2017

News

Pharma meets high-tech

What’s thethreshold forplausibility?

This year’sWomen inAIPPI eventwas attendedby more than100 women IPpractitionersfrom all overthe world. Theevent washeld at O Barand Diningoverlooking a360 degreeview ofSydney

“One shouldn’t just sitin an armchair withoutdoing any research andbe able to make a claimnot knowing whether itwould work”

From the bristles of a toothbrush to ahip prosthesis, what’s the stanceacross the world on protecting partial

designs?At yesterday’s “Partial designs-full pro-

tection?” session, panellists discussed issuesaround protecting partial designs, especiallyfor the automobile industry, where spareparts has been the focus of the conversationand very often a political one. Partial designswill also be a question discussed at nextyear’s Congress.David Stone, partner at Allen & Overy,

and moderator of the panel, outlined theexisting law in the EU on partial designs. Inthe EU, there is express law protecting theappearance of the whole or part of a product.

The design has to be an industrial or handi-craft item. There is no requirement for thedesign application to name a product. Forexample, a design of a handle can be protect-ed whether it is used in a car or a boat. For political reasons, national laws differ

on spare parts in the EU. For instance inFrance and Germany non-visible spare partsare protected but not in the UK and Spain toavoid companies having monopolies.“Harmonisation for the past 15 years has notsucceeded,” said Stone.Tomohiro Nakamura, managing partner

at Konishi & Nakamura, noted that in Japan,a design has to designate the name of prod-uct to which the design is applied. For exam-ple, a registered design for cars cannot be

enforced against toy replicas. Inventive stepis assessed against any field of designs. Adesign for cars can destroy inventive step fora design for replicas, for instance.Component parts of a complex product iseligible to register regardless of whether theyare visible whilst in normal use or not. “In Australia, we have laws that are simi-

lar to EU law but with its own twists,” saidRobert Wulff, principal at Griffith Hack.“We have not yet determined if part of aproduct can be enforced but the AustralianDesigns Office does recognise part of a prod-uct.” Spare parts are not enforceable forpolitical reasons in Australia.A conundrum that arises on figuring out

what drawings are allowed when filing. For

example, can dotted lines be used to desig-nate features that are not claimed? “Theproblem arises when applicants has a designin their own jurisdictions but when they fileoverseas, the requirements may be differ-ent,” said Dunstan Barnes, associate atMcAndrews Held & Malloy.Looking ahead, areas for harmonisation

include parts of products being registrable,the requirement that partial designs be soldseparately, how partial designs should berepresented, status of unregistered designrights and visibility of designs during normaluse. The discussion on spare parts will con-tinue to be controversial across the globewith powerful lobbies from spare parts busi-nesses, consumers and car companies.

News

6 AIPPI CONGRESS NEWS Tuesday 17 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

Deciphering the part of a whole

Private receptions (left to right): Allens / Bird & Bird / McAndrews Held & Malloy / Brinkhof, Bristows and Vossius & Partner / CCPIT / Gilbert & Tobin / KWM / Davies Collison Cave

At Sunday’s briefing on“Development and IP”, panellistsdiscussed a range of issues that

developing countries are facing on theirpaths towards IP protection.IP protection has an important role to

play for developing countries in their goalto wean off their dependence on moredeveloped countries but it requires thesupport from government and interna-tional cooperation, said the speakers. “If you want investors to come, you

need to treat them fairly, and IP protec-tion is the secret,” said Martin Bensadonof Marval O’Farrell & Mairal in Argentina.Argentina has faced challenges in attract-ing foreign enterprises to invest in thecountry due to a lack of confidence in thecountry’s IP protection regime but things

are looking up as it plans to participate inglobal initiatives such as the PCT.“For IP to be helpful to developing

countries, collateral factors such as humancapital need to be put in place in parallel.Simply putting an IP system in place does-n’t help,” said Reinhard Oertli ofMeyerlustenberger Lachenal inSwitzerland, moderator of the panel. “Therule of law, a stable political system andhuman rights go hand in hand. Humanrights is the most important – it’s thewater in the bathtub.” IP protection is not just a policy pillar

on its own but is linked to economic devel-opment and can provide solutions forother societal issues. “Once the economydevelops on a strong IP ground, environ-mental, social and cultural development

problems will also be solved,” said HoaBinh Nguyen of Daitin & Associates Co inVietnam.“To do this, enforcement must be

increased for true IP protection and thistakes the awareness of customers andenterprises, improved IP registration pro-cedures, provision of incentives to cre-ators and turning innovation into businessassets with real market value.” Capacity building is an essential tool

for IP protection. “Technical assistance inbuilding awareness, formulation of IPstrategies, support of IP uptake by SMEsand development of training programmesfor IP offices are essential,” said FernandoDos Santos, Director General of ARIPO,which is made up of 19 African countries.He added that initiatives for strength-

ening regional and national capacities willinclude collaboration with WIPO, skillsdevelopment, improvement in the use ofIP by universities, studies on the impor-tance of IP to promote formulation of IPpolicies and an extension of theSwakopmund Protocol on the protectionof traditional knowledge and expressionsof folklore.

How to build IP awarenessin developing countries

News

AIPPI CONGRESS NEWS Tuesday 17 October 2017 7

Doreen LiuBeijing Hua Law FirmChinaI love Darling Harbourand the seafood here inSydney is beautiful – myfavourite is lobster. I waslast here 10 years agoand I’m very happy to beback.

Blain de VilliersAdams & AdamsSouth AfricaI love the cosmopolitannature of the city – thefood and drink and peo-ple. It’s a great place tocome on business as youcan combine networkingwith enjoying goodtimes.

Sergio GonzálezHerrero & AsociadosSpainThe people are friendly,kind, open and helpful inthe British style. It’s mysecond visit and I expectto come back every twoyears to see clients.

Belinda WadesonWadesonAustraliaI’m from Melbourne, sothis is the shortest trip toany international confer-ence for me. My high-lights of Sydney are theHarbour and the beauti-ful views, and I recom-mend going whale watch-ing if you have time.

Anna BogdanovaARS-PatentRussiaI love cities with water. Iwas here once beforeand I went on a boat trip,walked around the har-bour and saw the sea-side. But this time I havebeen busy working!

Bambang PriyonoAMR PartnershipIndonesiaThe environment here isvery nice and the weath-er is pleasant, especiallytoday! There is a lot ofchange and constructiongoing on – the architec-ture in Sydney is alwaysstriking.

VOXPOPWhat is yourfavourite thing about Sydney?

This year’s Congress will be endingsoon, but AIPPI’s work goes on –with several important initiatives

in the pipeline. First and foremost are thefour Study Questions to be debated at nextyear’s Congress in Cancun. “We rely onmembers’ contributions to ensure we havea fruitful discussion. So my message is: ifyou have any ideas on the breadth anddepth of these topics, please contact thereporter responsible,” Reporter GeneralSarah Matheson told the AIPPI CongressNews.

Hague ConferenceAIPPI also has observer status at the ThirdMeeting of the Special Commission on theRecognition and Enforcement of ForeignJudgments, which will take place in TheHague from November 13 to 17 2017. TheHague Conference on Private InternationalLaw (HCCH) is working on a project on thedevelopment of a convention on the recog-nition and enforcement of foreign judg-ments. Among the initiatives being discussed are

important provisions on the enforcement ofIP. There is no agreement yet, so AIPPI hasa key role to play in reflecting the views of IPusers.AIPPI is sending out a questionnaire to

national/regional groups straight after theCongress, asking for input on general points.Later on, a more detailed questionnaire willbe sent out. “This is an important area oftreaty development, and any responses tothe questionnaires will help AIPPI to

establish an initial position and set out ourbasic principles,” said Matheson. Questions address topics including the

scope of the Convention; whether it shouldonly apply to monetary awards or also otherjudgments; multi-jurisdictional issues; andenforcement of foreign judgments.

Access to medicinesFinally, AIPPI’s Pharmaceutical Committeeand TRIPs Committee have completed ajoint report on access to medicines, which dis-cusses the key IP issues arising from this sen-sitive topic. The report is awaiting approvalby the Bureau and will be launched shortly.

What’s next for AIPPI

“For IP to be helpful to developing countries,collateral factors such as human capital need to beput in place in parallel”

“We rely onmembers’contributions toensure we have afruitful discussion”

Contact details for the reporters are: • Conflicting patent applications: John Osha j.osha@aippi.org• 3D trade marks: Anne Marie Verschuur am.verschuur@aippi.org• Partial designs: Yusuke Inui y.inui@aippi.org and Ari Laakkonen

a.laakkonen@aippi.org• Joint liability for IP infringement: Ralph Nack r.nack@aippi.org

09.00-12.30 Plenary Session: Study Question Bad faith trademarks Cockle Bay Room 1+209.00-10.30 Panel Session XI: How much for your FRAND? C3.310.30-11.00 Coffee break The Gallery11.00-12.30 Panel Session XII: What’s the (technical) problem? C3.312.30-14.00 Lunch Briefing: Update on Brexit/the UPC Parkside Ballroom 112.30-14.00 Networking Lunch Grand Ballroom14.00-17.30 Executive Committee II Cockle Bay Room 1+215.30-16.00 Coffee break The Gallery19.00-02.00 Closing Dinner Luna Park

TODAY’SSCHEDULE

TUESDAY 17OCTOBER 2017

SAVE THE DATES!Details of upcoming AIPPI World Congresses:Cancun, Mexico: September 23-26 2018 London, UK: September 15-18 2019Hangzhou, China: dates tbc (2020) San Francisco, CA, USA: dates tbc (2021)Istanbul, Turkey: dates tbc (2022) Yokohama, Japan: dates tbc (2023)