Workshops

Workshop 1

CET // Cooperating to achieve consistent examination of inventive step of antibody claims

Despite patent claims directed to biologics and small molecules being, fundamentally, product claims directed to a chemical compound, Patent Offices around the world are increasingly applying a different standard for the assessment of these claims, particularly when it comes to inventive step. 

In particular, the EPO guidelines indicate that the assessment of inventive step of antibody inventions should start from the premise that such inventions are not patentable, which is at odds with the approach to the assessment of inventive step for other product claims, including small molecules. 

Join this session to explore the divergence between how small molecule inventions and antibody inventions are considered for inventive step in different jurisdictions. For example, is there a better approach the EPO should be using to define the objective technical problem for antibody patent applications?

CO-LEADERS:

Tamaris Bucher
Novartis (CH)

Dr. Claire Gregg
Principal, Davies Collison Cave (AU)
FICPI Study & Work Committee (CET) - Group 5 Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals

REPORTER:    

Dr. Serge Shahinian
Partner, Lavery Lawyers (CA)
FICPI Study & Work Committee (CET) - Group 5 Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals

Workshop 2

CET // Should the scope of design protection be limited by title or claim?

Delve into the complexities of design rights across various jurisdictions, focusing on differences in how the title or product name affects design registration and infringement.  Play a part in developing FICPI’s position on this issue, with a focus on ensuring fair competition and incentivizing design innovation.

LEADER

Rob S. Katz
Partner, Banner & Witcoff (US)
FICPI Study & Work Committee (CET), Vice President

REPORTER

Michael Conway
Partner, Haseltine Lake Kempner (UK)
FICPI Study & Work Committee (CET), Reporter - Group 2 Designs

Workshop 3

CET // How useful is PPH really?

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) has been with us for almost 20 years, having originated between the Japanese and US Patent Offices in 2006.  It is promoted by offices as a means of accelerating application and improved efficiency by re-using work.  However, how useful is it in practice.  Are there jurisdictions where a PPH is not worth filing, or where using the PPH is by far the best strategy for achieving grant?

LEADER

Robert Watson
Partner, Mewburn Ellis (UK)
FICPI Study & Work Committee (CET), President

REPORTER

Katsumori Iseki
Partner, CP Japan IP Attorneys (JP)
FICPI Study & Work Committee (CET), Chair - Group 3 International Patent Matters

Workshop 4

CET // Classification of Trade Marks – should there be no classes or more classes?

Trademarks are categorised into classes based on goods and services, following the Nice Classification system which started in 1957. There’s ongoing debate on whether this system should be more granular, with additional classes, or simplified with fewer. Proponents of more classes argue that it offers precise protection for specialized industries, ensuring trademarks are not misused across unrelated sectors. On the other hand, those advocating for fewer classes emphasize efficiency and reduced complexity, making trademark registration more accessible. Come along and share your views.

LEADER

Elena Miller
Partner, Bojinov & Bojinov (BG)
FICPI Study & Work Committee (CET), Chair - Group 1 Trade Marks

REPORTER

Eleni Kokkini
Partner, PPT Legal (GR)
FICPI Study & Work Committee (CET), Vice President

Workshop 5

PMC // Understanding IP litigation insurance without the headache

Join us for an engaging and accessible workshop where we demystify the complex world of intellectual property litigation insurance. Designed with a friendly, down-to-earth approach, this session will explore how IP litigation insurance can serve as a valuable safety net for protecting the innovations of your client from unexpected challenges.

Together, we will:

• Unpack the fundamentals of IP litigation insurance and its key benefits.
• Discuss real-world case studies to illustrate how tailored coverage can mitigate risks.
• Provide practical tips on assessing an IP portfolio and choosing the right policy.

This workshop offers a unique opportunity to expand your expertise and explore cutting-edge approaches to protecting intellectual assets.  Whether you are looking to refine your practice or broaden your service offerings, join us for an engaging session that bridges the gap between IP law and litigation insurance

WORKSHOP LEADERS

Dr. Jean-Nicolas Longchamp
Partner, dynamXIP GmbH (CH)
FICPI Practice Management Committee (PMC)

AON

REPORTER

TBC

Workshop 6

PMC // Automation of workflow: easing the burden

Automating workflows in an IP firm involves using software to perform and streamline repetitive tasks within the application process, such as document generation, filing and receiving communications from IP offices, data entry, status updates, client communication and deadline reminders. 

Getting this right has the potential to significantly improve efficiency, accuracy, speed and client service in almost everything we do.  But the challenges can be equally significant, arising from factors including lack of integration in the systems we use, training requirements, security and compliance issues, and the need to rethink our overall workflow processes.  

This workshop will provide an opportunity for discussion on this important topic, including presenting survey results from a questionnaire amongst FICPI members.

CO-LEADERS

Chris Bird
Partner, FPA Patent Attorneys (AU)
FICPI Practice Management Committee (PMC)

Vikrant Rana
Managing Partner, S.S. Rana (IN)
FICPI Practice Management Committee (PMC)
FICPI Study & Work Committee - Group 1 Trade Marks

Sini-Maaria Mikkila
Chief Strategy Officer & Partner, Boco IP (FI)
FICPI Practice Management Committee (PMC)
FICPI Study & Work Committee - Group 3 International Patent Matters

REPORTER:

TBC