2015

WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

PRESENTED BY

Top Five Global Patent Concerns

for 2015WHAT KEEPS THE PATENT INDUSTRY AWAKE AT NIGHT?

2WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

WelcomeContents

03 A NOTE FROM LEGAL IQ

09 MONETISATION, LICENSING & MARKETPLACE Nokia’s Noteworthy Approach to Innovative Litigation x

x IP at Shell

13 PATENT MANAGEMENT & PATENT TECHNOLOGY The IP Survival Guide x

x What Are Your Patent Technology Requirements?

17 INNOVATION & IP LEADERS The Truth about Technology Transfer Licensingx

x Mediation: An Alternative to Litigation?

16 GLOBAL PATENT ISSUESx A Glance at Global Trends

04 PATENT PROTECTION & LITIGATION Google Reveals Their Secret to a Successful IP Litigation strategyx

x

x

x

A Tremendous Trinity of Litigation Tips Lessons from the Swiss Federal Patent Court What Skills Make for a Good Litigator?

KEY ArticleCase study Industry insight

x Three Tips for Global Litigation

3WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

The EditorA note from

IP professionals are constantly being pulled in different directions. In today’s global markets, it is crucial to understand international legal frameworks across a wide range of diverse regions in order to anticipate change, harvest business opportunities and make strategic decisions to maximise return on your IP portfolio.

With Europe introducing the Unified Patent Court, China producing initial feedback from its new specialised IP court and the US seeing an increasingly activist Supreme Court, keeping an overview of what is going on around the globe has never been more important

Knowing how to successfully harness your monetisation strategies, protection methods and open innovation has now become the key competitive differentiator in litigation. Additionally, the need to focus on generating value to your business through patent portfolio is paramount, whether this is through licensing or acquisition of patents and partnerships. Implementing and executing a powerful patent strategy which adds value to the business, aligns with business strategy and works closely with R+D/ management has never been more important.

In May 2015, Legal IQ surveyed its community to find out how current global patent issues were affecting the industry. Key findings from our survey include:

Maya FowellEditor, Legal IQ

Protection and LitigationEver wondered how Google continually deliver a successful IP Litigation strategy? Google’s Director IP and Litigation, shares their secret to success. What lessons can an Adjunct Judge from the Swiss Federal Patent Court teach you, and where do you fall on the Good Litigator spectrum? Take our test!

Monetisation, Licensing and Marketplace How are you making sure the monetisation of your patents remains consistent? Nokia has six cost-effective solutions you can implement today.

Patent Management & Patent Technology What are your patent technology requirements? Are you investing in the right technology for the right areas of your business? Dako Europe unlock the door to knowing which patent technology is essential for your business. Want more? Questel present the essential IP Survival Guide to make this year the year for profitable investment.

Global Patent IssuesThe EPO share the essential developments happening in the European Patent System, whilst we take a loot at global trends and present three tips for effectively litigating worldwide.

Innovation & IP Leaders What to do when litigation is not the best course of action and the absolute truth behind technology transfer licensing.

INSIGHT INCLUDES:

I HOPE YOU ENJOY READING OUR REPORT

x

x

x

42.86% of survey respondents selected the U.S asthe region they had seen the biggest increase in patent involvement for their companies over the last 18 months

The three key challenges identified to be faced by the majority of companies in the near to mid future in the patent field were:

1. Finding and being able to successfully use general defence strategies to protect your global portfolio

2. Understanding and analysing changing rules across different jurisdictions due to the lack of harmonisation

3. Being cost effective with litigation

When asked which types of topics were most relevant to their day to day work, 50% of respondents selected IP portfolio management and technology as their highest concern. 42% highlighted patent litigation, protection and enforcement as their second biggest concern which was closely followed by 33% identifying patent monetisation, licensing and marketplace as their third major concern.

4WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

Google Reveal Their Secret to a Successful IP Litigation Strategy

Protection & Litigation

Catherine Lacavera is the Director of IP and Litigation at Google. Named one of Fortune Magazine’s 40 Under 40, a U.S. Rising Star by Legal500, and one of the most innovative in-house counsel by the Daily Journal, Google’s secret weapon in litigation wars is Catherine Lacavera.

Catherine joined the company in 2005 and has built Google’s intellectual-property litigation department through its aggressive defence strategy. She manages a team of over 25 intellectual property attorneys and technical advisors. She oversees a global litigation docket that has included more than 500 patent infringement and other intellectual property matters, including Viacom and other copyright litigation against YouTube, and Apple, Microsoft and Oracle copyright and patent litigation directed at Android. Catherine oversaw Google’s 2012 victory over Oracle’s IP attack on Android (Oracle has appealed); twice her team has triumphed against Viacom in long-running copyright litigation; and she also advised on Google’s $12.5 billion Motorola Mobility acquisition in 2012.

In the US, there is a lot of mandatory mediation as part of litigation

CATHERINE LACAVERA

Maya Fowell Due to the implementation of the America Invents Act, the landscape of US litigation has changed. What does this change mean for Google?

Catherine Lacavera There have been two significant impacts of the America Invents Act from my perspective, the first one being on the venue. We saw quite a shift from most cases being filed in Texas to many litigations being filed in Delaware, and the number of litigants in a case has also decreased. Plaintiffs previously included 20 or more co-defendants in a single case in order to solidify the venue in Texas, but the American Invents Act does not permit that. Under AIA, you can only join parties if there is true commonality of issues. That has meant that there are fewer co-defendants in cases, which makes it easier to manage the cases but also harder for plaintiffs to obtain venue in jurisdictions where it is inappropriate. That is one major shift, although we are seeing a retrenching on venue. Even though there are not as many co-defendants in a single case, we are seeing consolidation of cases in venues for discovery purposes. As a result, the venue change has not been, over time, as impactful as it was at first.

The second major shift would be in the re-exam or patent office proceedings. Inter partes review has replaced inter partes re-exam. Inter partes review is significantly different in that it is much more like a litigation at the patent office with depositions and discovery. Interestingly, there has been a move towards a more bifurcated system, like Germany. Although the U.S. district courts evaluate invalidity, unlike in Germany, the patent office proceedings on invalidity are much more like litigation.

MF How is Google adapting and reacting to the change. Can you give me an example?

5WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

CL We are taking advantage of these procedures. We have to adjust to accommodate them but there has been a shift in the way that we are litigating cases. Initially we were trying out these procedures and figuring out what the differences were and how the law would be applied. We are tracking all the decisions that are coming out of the patent office very closely, including issues around the real party in interest, as well as the grant rate for reviewed patents. Also, we are considering whether or not to file a covered business method versus an inter partes review proceeding, or both. We are testing the limits of what it means to have the financial hook to qualify for CBM. We are monitoring all those decisions and adjusting on a real time basis.

MF What new litigation strategies does Google have in place as a result of the change in US litigation landscape?

CL We are using the patent office proceedings that were not available before. The result of that has been a lot more stays of district court litigation. That has consequences in terms of the reality of estoppel on invalidity issues. You have to be much more exhaustive in your search for prior art when you file these invalidity proceedings. You also have to time your filings to avoid statutory bars and be sure to name the correct real party in interest. There is also a counsel shift. Previously, we would primarily hire litigation counsel for the litigation, and then patent counsel for the patent office proceedings. Now, the patent office proceedings are much more like general litigation with depositions and other discovery, so there is a much closer tie between the counsel that is handling the litigation and the patent office proceedings.

When you have scale, you have the benefit of optimising the way that you are handling cases by identifying areas that are duplicative and optimising those with models

MF When you are litigating at a scale that Google does, a huge conglomerate that everyone identifies with, how does your day-to-day differ in comparison to other companies? Does it differ?

CL When you have scale, you have the benefit of optimising the way that you are handling cases by identifying areas that are duplicative and optimising those with models. This frees time up for the stickier, newer issues. An advantage of having so many cases is that you are able to gather the best practises of various different firms across various different cases, and use the best wisdom on strategy questions and on submissions. That has been hugely advantageous to us.It is also a lot more fun for my team to get to see some of everything going on at any given time. If they are interested in seeing a summary judgment hearing, or a Markman hearing, or a deposition, or an expert deposition, they can participate in anything at any given time. The learning curve is steep but is also rapid because at Google you are exposed to many different pieces of the litigation simultaneously.

MF When I think of innovation, I think of Google and I think of Apple. In your opinion, what sets IP litigation at Google apart from its competitors?

You have to be much more exhaustive in your search for prior art when you file these invalidity proceedings

CL Between us, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung and others in the technology industry, we have a lot of patent litigation and a lot of non-practising entity patent litigation. Many of us are coordinating on reform efforts and are coordinating on how we are dealing with non-practising entities. Some of us are being hit with the same cases; we are in joint defence groups, so we certainly work very closely on cases where we are co-defendants and we try to coordinate strategies as best we can.In terms of differences, the set of technical advisors we have on our team is somewhat unique, or at least it was when we formed that team. That has been a real asset to us in litigating these cases for the reasons I mentioned. It has been a major area of innovation. I am not aware of other in-house organisations having the scale or the need of also doing that level of optimisation internally.

MF Does Google explore any alternatives to litigation (e.g. mediation)?

CL In the US, there is a lot of mandatory mediation as part of litigation. We have a licensing group that handles licensing and if people approach us outside the context of litigation that is certainly preferred. We have the full gamut of legal staff making sure that we operate in a lawful way and handling engagements on a case-by-case basis.

GOOGLE’S TRINITY OF LITIGATION TIPS

Optimise for strategies across cases Our strategies allow us to have consistency among the cases and to also optimise for costs. We have done a number of things like bringing our discovery in-house in order to manage discovery costs, negotiating agreements internally and across cases for consistency, and managing with a set of repository forms that allow us to be efficient. We are able to litigate the cases cost efficiently because of these things.

Choose the right counsel Choice of counsel is really important and finding the right team to represent the company the way it wants to litigate the case is imperative. It is critical to tailor the counsel to the case. Training outside counsel on how to work with you and meet your expectations is also very important.

Create the best in-house team I am proud of the patent litigation team that we have at Google. I have the good fortune to work with a really excellent set of colleagues and to be given the resources to invest in their expertise. We also invest in our in-house team of technical associates, and that is the one area that is really helpful for patent litigation. We have found it very helpful to have engineers on our team helping us dive into the technical details of the patent litigation. It has also reduced the burden on our product managers and engineers.

6WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

Lessons from the Swiss Federal Patent Court

Christoph Gasser (Dr iur (Bern); LLM (Michigan)) is a partner in the Zurich office of Staiger, Schwald & Partner AG and the head of the firm’s IP department. His practice includes litigation and advice in all fields of intellectual property, including the prosecution and enforcement of trademark, design, copyright, domain name and unfair competition matters and the enforcement of patents - in particular in the mechanical and pharmaceutical areas. He also advises on commercial contracts such as distribution and licensing agreements, research and development cooperation and franchising.

Mr Gasser is an adjunct judge of the Swiss Federal Patent Court. He has also lectured on trademark and copyright law at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. He teaches IP and unfair competition law at the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, Bern and serves as an expert examiner for the Swiss patent Bar examination.

CHRISTOPH GASSER

Maya Fowell If you were to sum up the current ideology driving decisions at the Swiss Federal Patent Court, what would it be?

Christoph Gasser Overall we have very few decisions, 85% of the cases get settled. The court specialises in creating a first hearing after each party has handed in their first brief. Then a delegation of the court gives a preliminary view on the case and that allows the parties to assess the further process of the entire case. That means the parties relatively know whether they will prevail, or to what extent they will prevail or lose the case. Now, of course it is just a two person panel out of five judges, but that still gives an incentive to settle the case, and if possible, to find a win-win solution. Now, having said that after three years in practice, this court has not yet issued many decisions; so in that sense it is difficult to say whether it is rather in favour or not in favour of patent owners or infringers. With regards to its justice, I am not in a position to assess that, but what I can say overall is I think the quality has clearly increased compared to what we had before, in several cantons. The strategy, the way of the European Patent Office to handle cases in terms of novelty, incomes of non-obviousness has factually been observed to a considerable extent by

the Swiss Federal Patent Court, which is what I notice as an attorney; not as a judge, because as a judge we are of course free to handle cases. We certainly look at our jurisdictions, as it is our obligation to be to some extent in compliance with other jurisdictions to harmonise the patent system, and patent law in Europe.

I think that the system is working quite well, given the short time we have had so far, However, as 85% of the cases get settled it is relatively early to give a full view of the entire picture here.

MF Are there any areas that you think need improving at the Swiss Patent Court?

CG What could we make better? Maybe more advertising of the fact that litigating in English is a possibility which in turn would help us to attract more cases. However, the problem is both parties must agree on English and usually if one party proposes having English the other party rejects, because they think if the case is not in English then other party may be disadvantaged. In terms of timing, we are not really able to change that as it has been imposed by this court in Strasbourg. Overall, it is a general hope of the patent court to get more jurisdictional power in the sense that it will not only get civil law but for instance also criminal law, but that is down to the legislator rather than something we can do internally.

MF Do you think the Swiss system works well?

CG I do think it works well, it is certainly much better than it used to be and I think the quality of the decisions has improved. In order to keep improving our quality it is important that we always look at what we can do better. We certainly have our restrictions in terms of case load, as a matter of principle to have just full time judges would be better with respect to this conflict of interest issue, however the country is so small and does not have enough cases to allow us to appoint ten or 15 judges to take care of all these issues. That would require setting up a full IP court of first instance of the entire country, but that is politically not doable and not welcome at this stage. Overall, I think we have experienced judges who have spent a lot of time with patent law. We are certainly aware that most cases are handled in Germany, that they may have an extremely high quality, that there are also very good jurisdictions in the Netherlands, in the UK, and to some extent France, but we have the right to try to be competitive with them. In terms of cost, well, we have relatively high prices which is a given in this country. On the other hand, I do think that the court is reasonable and that the attorney fees are relatively low as a result. Although I think the system has improved in comparison to what we had before, before we had 26 states and every state was allowed or able to handle patent cases with competence. There were three, four states or cantons which were experienced. Zurich, for instance, to

After three years in practice, this court has not yet issued many decisions; so in that sense it is difficult to say whether it is rather in favour or not in favour of patent owners or infringers

It is a general hope of the patent court to get more jurisdictional power

7WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

some extent Berne or Basel, and of cantons, smaller cantons in the French speaking area, in the mountains, may have had one case in five years. They had no chance to be able to really handle these cases, so they tried to find a patent agent, an expert, who was actually deciding the case, or they tried to find any formal reasons to get rid of the case and that was annoying. Bearing all this in mind, I think the system is good for what we have. To some extent I am partial not only as a member of the court, but also as the general manager of the Swiss IP Association, which has contributed to the creation of this court. We are of course open to get criticism and we try to criticise ourselves as well, but relatively speaking so far it has been a great step.

MF The unified patent and UPC will not directly impact Swiss patent court decisions but indirectly, do you think it will?

CG Absolutely, as it has always has. In the past, if there was a case from Germany or a decision from Germany, this decision was mostly observed by Swiss courts. Now, it may have changed to some extent because the Swiss have the patent court and seems to have enough experience. The influence from is still significant, but not prevailing. With this new system it may be that the significance of this decision may decrease as a first step, because we do not yet fully believe in the reliability of those decisions.

I speak of Germany because most patent litigation is handled in Germany, and if you are in Germany you have virtually won Europe. Cases under the UPC will become settled, but I do not think that the influence will increase. As I first said, it may rather decrease; it may also be that the system becomes slower, so that parties come to Switzerland to have an early decision and a precedent to be shown to a potentially slower court under the UPC system. Again, that depends on how the UPC system is aimed to develop.

MF Do you see Swiss courts as being in competition with other courts based inside and outside of Europe?

CG Outside? No. Inside, is it competition? Formally, certainly not, as no other court has jurisdiction on Switzerland, except for the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which I mentioned before. A competition extends to say you attract patent owners by a patent owner friendly case law system. So there are courts in Germany which have the reputation of being patent owner friendly, and of course then people have a go there. Do we see competition? From a formal point of view? No. From a practical point of view, I think we should offer a clear, reliable and reasonably expensive court, but to compete with other courts may make you biased. For instance, as a matter of principle we wish to make money and that means we wish to make a court fee.

That means the more calls, the more cases you attract, the more court fees we get and that usually means we must attract infringed parties, it means patent owners, and that means working on patent infringement. On the other hand, we must allow for a correct plaintiff in case of nullification actions.That means we must rather be inclined to accept infringements and to regard patents as void, in order to attract as many plaintiffs as possible. I do think such an approach is only economic. It is finding the job to look at what the law is from an objective point of view, basically irrespective of whether you attract people or not. But what is certain to shoot to be is reliable and quick. In this sense, you are called to be competitive and to say, okay, we wish to have protection, and that is our pride, and that means also that we are fast, that we are reliable, that our proceeding is clear, and then we may attract cases.

To some extent I am partial not only as a member of the court, but also as the general manager of the Swiss IP Association

I think we should offer a clear, reliable and reasonably expensive court, but to compete with other courts may make you biased

We are certainly aware that most cases are handled in Germany, but we have the right to try to be competitive with them

8WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

From a court point of view - if I look at briefs, being a judge, I would suggest being clear as they are relatively short, not making too much noise and not making stupid jokes or insults, it does not bring anything substantial to the brief. From a parties point of view – be responsive, give clear-cut advice, present solutions rather than questions, lead the client, price is important but maybe even more important than the price is reliability. That means make a budget and observe the budget, and if the budget cannot be observed, get to the client before, and say ‘look, I need more money, do you wish to continue?’, and then accept their answer. Overall, a good litigator focuses on price, is responsive, efficient and clear.

They give the feeling that they are in business to support the client, and not just in business to make turnover for their law firm. I also think that more partner hours on a case is generally welcome, as the younger people are, the more expensive they are to some extent as, maybe, a partner always 50% more expensive than an associate hour, and a partner may be three times quicker. That is something clients know. On the other hand, it is also our job to educate younger people, and everybody has been young in former times, so you have to get the right kind of a balance. But the client does not care about education of young people; the client is caring about what he has to pay, and what she gets at the end of the day in terms of access.

MAYA FOWELL SPEAKS TO ADJUNCT JUDGE CHRISTOPH GASSER ABOUT THE QUALITIES HE HAS LEARNT MAKE UP A GOOD LITIGATOR

Which characteristics are most closely related to your litigation style? (please tick the option that most applies)

CLEAR AND CONCISE

RESPONSIVE

CALM

PRAGMATIC

PROVIDE SOLUTIONS

DILIGENT

OPEN

DESCRIPTIVE AND ELABORATE

INFLEXIBLE

LOUD

IMAGINATIVE

ASK QUESTIONS

SPORADIC

CLOSED

VsVsVsVsVsVsVs

Judge Christoph Gasser: What skills make for a good litigator?

Take this test and read on to find out what your results mean

Do you have what it takes to be a good litigator?

9WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

Nokia’s Noteworthy Approach to Innovative Litigation

Monetisation

Dr Clemens-August Heusch LL.M. is head of European Litigation at Nokia where he is responsible for litigation and arbitration throughout Europe, Near East and Africa with a strong focus on multi-national IP litigation. Since 2008 Nokia has been involved in more than 200 patent cases worldwide, including defending claims for infringement brought by Qualcomm, Interdigital, Apple, KPN, HTC and IPCom. In recent years Nokia has also asserted its own patents against Apple, HTC, RIM and Viewsonic.

For these cases, Nokia’s litigation team has been awarded the in-house team of the year 2009 by Managing IP magazine, and was nominated for this category by German legal directory, Juve. Clemens was awarded by Juve for “40 unter 40” (40 German top lawyers under the age of 40) in 2012, and was listed by Legal500 in the category Corporate Counsel 100: Germany.

Before joining Nokia, Clemens worked as attorney-at-law at the international law firm Bird & Bird LLP (2004–2008)

CLEMENS-AUGUST HEUSCH

THREE STRATEGIES TO PROTECT YOUR PORTFOLIO AND BOTTOM LINE:

1. Filing Strategy: In which jurisdictions do you need patent protection? Focus on main markets here, but also jurisdictions which are of special importance for competitors, e.g. their most important markets or production places, logistic hubs, but also jurisdictions with favourable pro-patentee jurisdictions. Commercial and other considerations can also play a role here: the higher the value, the broader the patent should be validated. If it is a patent on the production process, then of course coverage in countries where production is likely / possible is sufficient. Also in cases where it is commercially not attractive to have different products for the various markets, it might be sufficient to concentrate on key jurisdictions.

2. Divisional applications / limitations: These can be very powerful tools to come to overcome potential validity concerns and at the same time get more relevant patent claims. In some cases, patent applications are drafted rather broadly to cover as much as possible. Later during prosecution or in other ways the patentee might become aware of closer prior art. However, this can cause validity concerns in later infringement cases which especially in bifurcated jurisdictions can lead to stays and / or dismissals. Therefore it can make sense to limit the claims prior to starting infringement cases. It may also turn out that the market develops differently than expected at filing. Then divisional applications might give the possibility to get more useful claims.

3. Defending validity attacks: Especially preparing good auxiliary requests and being flexible. Once patents are subject to validity attacks, you have to make a commercial decision on whether it is worth to defend the patent considering the value of the patent, the strength of the validity attack and potential litigation costs. There might be situations where you can avoid invalidation actions and especially publication of validity attacks by early settlements. But however, invalidation actions also have some strong upsides: in big portfolios, it might be worth testing validity of some patents. Because some patents might be found invalid, but those found valid are afterwards even stronger: you can always point to the fact that it was tried to invalidate without success.

10WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

THREE COST-EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES TO LITIGATE:

1. Choice of defendant: If we assume there is global coverage of a patent, then there can maybe many infringers in the distribution line: the producer, the importer, the wholesaler or the retail seller, because production as well as import or sale can be acts of infringement. Therefore the patentee has the choice whom he wants to sue. There might be strategic considerations, for example the jurisdiction: the producer might be domiciled in a less favourable jurisdiction than the wholesaler. On the other hand, of one company in the distribution line is at the same time also an important customer of the patentee that might be a good reason not to sue him. Further considerations could be the litigation record of the potential defendant: are they known for strong defences, or rather known to settle quickly? Also the financial situation can be of importance: is the defendant in case he loses able to reimburse the plaintiff’s costs?

2. Choice of jurisdiction: In patent infringement cases, there can be quite often a choice where to sue (as long as the patent is validated in the respective jurisdiction). Since the infringing product is often offered in many jurisdictions, all these jurisdictions might be places of tort and thus have jurisdiction. Then the patentee will consider where the most favourable places for him are: which jurisdictions are known to be patentee-friendly? He will also consider willingness to grant injunctions, cost reimbursement, general level of costs, and the effect on infringer (where would an injunction have considerable impact on his business?) or elements of the legal system such as bifurcation. Also the level of damages granted for past infringement can be decisive, the availability of disclosure or the speed of the lawsuits can be considered. It is further of importance what remedies are available, and whether first instance decisions are enforceable. All these factors can lead on a case-by-case basis to different results, so that the best place of litigation can quite vary from case to case.

3. Portfolio arbitration: The usual way to enforce patents is to sue infringers, and then the patentee might get an injunction stopping the infringer from using his patent. The infringer then can either take a license, or change his product to avoid the patent. However, if there are large portfolios, the patentee is willing to grant a license, and the infringer is willing to take a license, but parties cannot agree on the royalty rate, then it might make sense for both sides to set up a mechanism just to set the rate, like a court proceeding or arbitration. Then it does not make sense to look into infringement and validity of each and every patent, but rather take an economic approach, assuming that there will be some patents invalid or not infringed, but also others which are valid and infringed. This can be a much faster and more cost-efficient way to license a portfolio. By agreeing on such a procedure, the patentee can get to a reasonable solution within reasonable time, and the infringer can avoid the injunction risk.

11WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

Leveraging IP at Shell

Andrew Browne, Senior IP Counsel at Shell believes the first step to leveraging IP value is to have a solid understanding of what that value is. In this interview he outlines the steps taken at Shell to ensure that valuation methods are implemented, risks are identified and potential roadblocks are addressed. He also discusses the potential impact of open innovation and unitary patent litigation will have on the field.

ANDREW BROWNE

How can companies assemble and utilise a powerful patent portfolio through effective business alignment? What are the steps to doing this properly?

Andrew Browne: Every company will have business objectives, a business strategy and a technology strategy that is designed to support the achievement of the business strategy. Now, we have IP strategies in Shell, and most companies should do so as well. An IP strategy should not exist in a vacuum, it has really got to be designed to help the business to achieve its technology, and business strategies. Otherwise, it does not really serve a useful purpose. The fact is it costs a lot of money to establish an IP position and then to maintain it so, close interaction between the business functions is absolutely key, in this regard.

How can companies use and leverage their IP portfolio, to build and develop market leading positions?

AB Using Shell as an example, we are currently leveraging IP value. To leverage IP value, you really have to have some sort of understanding of the actual value of your IP portfolios. We carry out quantitative valuations of bundles of IP assets on a regular basis, and this involves the application of income valuation methods. Eventually we arrive at a net IP value. The focus cannot simply be on the number that is given to the value of an IP portfolio, companies must also seeks to identify risks – and that is risk In terms of legal IP risks, technology risks, and business risks. Whether within the IP function or n terms of more patent filings, looking at the risks, you can actually then seek to address them. Having this direction can steer the business and perhaps the areas that need an increase of R&D.

How can licensing in joint ventures be used to meet business objectives?

AB Shell licenses IP to national oil companies on the global stage, as well as into joint ventures in various markets. We do not do it to make money; we do it because it is a good strategy for Shell. It allows us to focus on supporting our upstream business and to foster and reinforce relationships when it comes to exploration and production.

It is also good in terms of bragging rights which help us to support other licensing deals. When your company has a number of license arrangements in place, it demonstrates to the market that you have the relevant smarts, capability and know-how. In a joint venture there is a variation on a theme because it is simply a vehicle, through which you will license IP. Again, it is about trying to increase your reputation and brand in the marketplace through successful licensing and joint ventures. Furthermore, licensing IP and putting IP into joint ventures can assist in terms of learning where pressure points may arise and help make way for new improvements which you can then feedback into your business.

Joint ventures are about trying to increase your reputation and brand in the marketplace.

What will be the major changes, do you think, in the intellectual property field, in the coming 18 months?

AB Open innovation is a major challenge. I think that any company that suggests it has a closed innovation model is not being truthful about the nature of R&D. No individual company has a monopoly in relation to R&D smarts. Open innovation is something that is growing exponentially in the marketplace and it is something that companies need to look at very carefully to avoid the risks of contamination against their own R&D efforts. It also needs to be looked at as a means of getting to markets more quickly, and having something that is going to deliver on needs.I think one of the concerns is around the continuing fragmentation in Europe when it comes to enforcing patents. How do we ensure freedom to operate?Globally, I think things are improving in the Gulf and in Asia when it comes to protecting and enforcing IP. There are ongoing challenges there, the reality is that most companies operate on the global stage, and it is quite expensive and time consuming to have a clear view about what the challenges and risks are, and how best to address them.

An IP strategy should not exist in a vacuum, it has really got to be designed to help the business to achieve its technology, and business strategies.

12WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

Mediation: An Alternative to Litigation?

Edward Smith is an Accredited Mediator at the IPO. Edward has been a hearing officer at the UKIPO for 13 years, working across both inter and ex parte matters arelating to trade marks.

EWARD SMITH

For mediators, the job is an exercise in rescue, to rescue people from the courts and sometimes from themselves. The job of the mediator is to move the party from insisting on its ‘position’ to focussing on its ‘interest’.

The mediator does not pass judgment, but facilitates agreement arrived at between the parties. It is impossible to predict what that agreement may be. In trade mark disputes it is often a co-existence agreement, a rebranding or sale. In patent disputes it could be a licence. But it is a dangerous presumption to make that such outcomes are inevitable in any given dispute.

It can be hard where the levels of trust are non-existent. The parties can be entrenched and sometimes the amounts spent on legal fees are colossal. The parties must willingly arrive at their own agreement.

An advantage mediation has over the Court is that no dirty washing is aired in public

Mediation is here to stay though. The courts encourage it, especially where the costs incurred by the parties are disproportionate to the claims being made. Such is the case with many IP disputes. Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) rules contain cost capping. This gives further incentive to mediated solutions as an alternative to gambling cash away with little or no hope of recovery.

The IPO has 5 accredited mediators. The service was revamped in April 2013 and since then has mediated 12 disputes involving IPO, IPEC and High Court actions. 8 of these have settled on the day or just afterwards.

Further incentive to mediate is that the outcome of many IP disputes is hard to predict. Judges and hearing officers are required to adopt legal constructs such as the ‘average consumer’, the ‘person skilled in the art’, or the ‘informed user’.

Mediation is here to stay; the courts encourage it, especially where the costs incurred by the parties are disproportionate to the claims being made

Such people do not exist, save in the mind of the judge. This can render outcomes less dependent upon fact and more dependent on a judge’s sense of what may be the most just outcome.

Most importantly, the ‘solutions’ offered by the court are not necessarily what the parties really want. Often the first words spoken by every single party at a mediation, even with their legal advisers present, are something like, “Look, I just want this to go away”.

In many cases the parties just want to get on with their businesses.

For mediators, the job is an exercise in rescue, to rescue people from the courts and sometimes from themselves

This is why mediation can be so rewarding in that the control is handed back to the parties. But it also can be frustrating at times and involve commitment above and beyond the call of duty. Tales of sessions lasting well into the early hours are rife in the profession and even amongst colleagues. Another advantage of mediation over the Court is that no dirty washing is aired in public. Everything is confidential and without prejudice as far as the court is concerned.

The biggest obstacle though to mediated settlement is that, simply, the wrong people are at the mediation. The mediator insists that those present have the authority to settle but it can become clear that this is not always the case. When this happens the mediation will often fail.

Ending on a positive note though, there is no better feeling for a mediator that when the parties sign a settlement agreement.

13WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

The IP Survival Guide

Patent Management & Patent Technology

Mr. Charles Besson serves as the Chief Executive Officer at Questel-Orbit, Inc. Charles Besson was born near Lyon, France and studied for a degree in business and administration from Audencia Management School in Nantes. He then went on to study for an MBA at the Sorbonne in Paris, as it had always been his ambition to get into business.

After his studies he got a job with a French company called Lectra, which made equipment for the clothing industry. He worked in the finance department of its Brazilian subsidiary, but after a couple of years transferred to the sales department, which allowed him to travel all around the region. He was eventually appointed to run the Colombian subsidiary of Lectra and moved to Medellin.

In 2001 he got a call from his father, who asked him to join Questel as head of the US subsidiary following the buyout. This meant moving to Washington DC, which Besson admits he was not totally thrilled about.

Since 2001, Charles has taken Questel from strength to strength focussing the company on its core business of supplying intellectual property information to lawyers, researchers and executives. He believes that, although the needs of these clients has not changed at all, the way they want the information presented to them has changed radically in recent years.

Maya Fowell How would you define the culture at Questel?

Charles Besson Questel are innovative and courteous. I use courteous because for me it is very important, it is the first step to respect, and we make a point at Questel to be courteous to each other, to other customers and to our competitors.Questel has a long history of being innovative. I have been in charge of this company for 15 years, we used to be just a distributor of information but in 2000 we were the first company to launch an

online patent-searching tool. Now, it is very normal to have those tools as some of them are free, but in 2000 we were the first one to launch this tool. Following this, we were the first ones to launch a patent family database, and then we were the first ones to launch what we call IP business intelligence. It is a very wide topic now, but in a word, it corresponds to being able to analyse a large amount of patent data, and this, again, is where we have been innovative and the first one to launch this. For us, it is important to always be ahead because we are a small company and we understand always being able to try new things may be our unique advantage, compared to Thomson or CPA.

MF What strategies are you currently implementing or concentrating on in 2015? How will this develop over the next two years, and what are your goals?

CB We are focused on IP business intelligence. Our tag line is: Questel IP business intelligence and this means better data for sharper analysis. Let me give you some details. When we say better data, it means better translation, better normalisation of assignees, better extraction of concepts and also a broader range of data, inclusively outside of the patent world. There is no secret to this, if you want to do good analysis, you first need good data more than you need good analytic tools. So, today we are focusing on data quality and coverage. It was our goal last year, it will be our goal this year, and maybe later we can talk about our goal in the longer term, but for today it is business intelligence and quality of data.MF If you were to sum up your clients’ top three issues, what would they be?

CB I would say to have consistent, reliable data, reactive customer service, and unfortunately, competitive pricing. I say unfortunately because I would love to invoice a lot, but there is a reality. Today everybody needs to cut budgets, so we make sure that our prices are low and competitive. I would say that price comes third on the podium, after reliable data and reactive customer service.

IP should keep you up at night

MF From what you have been able to learn about the global IP industry so far, what do you see as the most important challenges the global IP industry faces?

CHARLES BESSON

14WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

CB I have been in the industry for more than 15 years now, and what I can say is that today IP is more than IP. IP should be part of the innovation process from the very beginning, and as a consequence it should be part of the board. To be able to survive in this world, you need to innovate, and the time for change is now. More users are facing the challenge to make a complex field like IP useful and understandable to the board. The board needs IP and they are just starting to realise it, but they are still not totally aware of what can be done, or missed, with IP. If your IP is related to innovation then as a CEO, IP should keep you up at night. Again, it is very important to understand that IP should be part of the innovation process from the very beginning of the innovation. As soon as you have an idea, you must think about IP, and this is why the board needs to understand the power and the necessity of IP.

MF Why do you think IP continues to fall outside of the innovation process?

CB Patents used to be just a defensive right: I have an invention and I protect it. Now patent is an asset, but it takes time, you know? We realise that the board still see IP as a defensive right, so they just consider IP when they already have a product. They say ‘I have a product on the market now, I want to be sure that nobody comes and copies me’, that is fine, but it is already too late. It has always been the case for most companies and even CEOs still behave like this, I think it will take time for this idea of IP being an asset to be fully understood by the board.

However, more and more people are understanding that before you have a product you need to apply for a patent. You need to think about IP even when you think about applying for a patent. As soon as you have an idea you need to be sure that nobody is already in the field. Moreover, if you have an IP it might be faster to take on-board the existing IP from someone else, and this is where we talk about open innovation. If you want to get good ideas, you need to see what is already patented, because a lot of good ideas come from a combination of existing ideas. If you want to be sure that you are innovate in the right direction you need to be aware of what your competition doing. Where is your competition heading? Where are the white spaces? To understand this, IP should be the core of your analysis, because IP is key for this, but not all CEOs realise it.

MF We are constantly making things better, faster, smarter or less expensive; we leverage technology or improve processes; in other words, we strive to do more with less. Tell me about a recent project or solution to a problem that Questel made better, faster, smarter, more efficient or less expensive?

CB Overall, we made IP business intelligence accessible for the expert patent searcher, allowing them to perform, in a matter of hours, tasks they used to do in weeks. With Orbit, our online tool, you can now analyse millions of patent data in a couple of hors, allowing you to know where you are, where you competition is heading and where you should invest. We have developed, and recently launched, a range of patent valuation tools allowing you to evaluate your patent portfolio against other portfolios, and particularly according to your specific need.Evaluation is a matter of point of view, so we have specific valuation tools depending on whether you are looking to license-in or out technologies, if you want to just build your portfolio, reinforce it or if you just to clean it up. So far, we have been receiving great feedback from this product, so this is really an area where we have been doing faster and less expensive innovation for the customer.

MF Charles, if we are sitting here a year from now, celebrating what a great year it has been for Questel, what did you achieve?

CB I think in a year I would be very happy if what I just explained

to you is a reality. So we will have achieved the first really reliable patent evaluation tool, and therefore we will offer such a powerful IP business intelligence solution that it will become obvious to the board that great things can be done with IP. I will be happy if the board welcome IP.

Today everybody needs to cut budgets, so we make sure that our prices are low and competitive

MF How do you see the company changing in two years, and how do you see yourself creating that change? You mentioned you were going to be focusing on data quality and making sure that you can extract concepts and get a broader range of data, but does that lead on in the next two years, or do your goals change after this first year?

CB You are correct. I was insisting on data quality and coverage, but we are getting there. We will never be satisfied with the quality of data, but we have done the most part of the job, and in two years we plan to move the company in another direction, which is the open innovation field. IP and innovation are deeply connected, as I previously explained, but also through the exchange and evaluation of IP assets. Today, there is a big need for companies to find IP elsewhere, so there is already a buzz about open innovation and so far, nobody has really found the business model around open innovation. However, we are seeing that if you connect open innovation with IP exchange and evaluation, then you have a business model because you can propose a concrete solution. So open innovation and IP is the area where we will invest in.

MF Pitch your service to me as you would in a sales meeting.

CB Questel allows you to cover all your IP needs, all along the innovation lifecycle from the internet solution, to consulting and finally, e-learning.

MF Describe yourself in one sentence

CB I am a happy guy and I sleep well.

We will never be satisfied with the quality of data, but we have done the most part of the job, and in two years we plan to move the company in another direction, which is the open innovation field

15WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

What are your patent technology requirements?

Tom Briscoe, Director – Strategy, Global IP & Technology at Dako Europe, is a resourceful technology leader combining business, technical, and intellectual property expertise to create innovative strategies leading to world-class patent and product portfolios. Tom is a registered patent agent skilled at bringing cross-functional and cross-organizational teams together for high quality IP development projects from architectural definition to post-development customer satisfaction.

TOM BRISCOE

A lot of companies believe it to be but aligning business goals with legal requirements is not the most important issue. The most important issue for any business is growth; if you are not growing you are dying and so the order in which you align things is very important. There are business aspects, technology aspects and legal aspects that all have to be aligned.

However, the focus and the centre goal of all of those functions has to be for the people that are executing the technology strategy to really understand how that is going to help the business grow, and for the people in the legal function to understand how the technologies which they are seeking to build a patent portfolio around will help the business grow. Then the question that people should be asking... normally when you talk with people the first thing that they think about is: I need IP to protect the value of my invention. My message is that protection is an important aspect but the much more important aspect is: I need IP to help project the value of my invention.

Therefore, the software that is most valuable from this strategic aspect is software that helps document and communicate what the strategy is. It is not typically specialised software built around the legal aspects of IP or even the technical aspects of IP, but it is collaboration software. It includes standard office software but also some of the networked office software that helps people understand, for example, why this invention is valuable, why the customer is interested in products or services that have the ability to use this invention and also how do we plan to grow the value of our IP portfolio around those value-producing IP assets.

16WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

A Glance at Global Trends

Eric Ruhlmann is Director, Senior Patent Counsel within Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd’s Legal Department. Qualified European and French patent attorney, he has been working in the field of pharmaceutical patents for almost 15 years. Before joining Actelion in 2005, Eric spent 8 years as Patent Counsel within Ipsen’s Corporate Intellectual Property Department

ERIC RUHLMANN

One global trend seems to be the fact that increasing numbers of patent offices are not so keen to grant broad patents unless these are well supported by concrete examples. More and more patent examiners do not hesitate to ask for evidence that an invention is likely to work over the whole scope claimed. This is in particular true for patent offices of South East Asia and Japan.Patent law has been fairly harmonised in the last two or three decades, the latest harmonisation being the amendment of US patent law. Therefore, national or regional differences mainly consist in having a few more or a few less exclusions from patentability, in having substantive examination performed or not by the local patent office, or in offering the possibility to oppose to patents after allowance or grant.However, in contrast to the current practice elsewhere, China and Canada recently decided to require patent applicants to provide experimental data in the text of the patent application so as to show that they were in possession of the invention at the filing date. Whether other important jurisdictions will introduce such a requirement in the coming years remains open. In any case, if you wish to obtain a patent in Canada or in China, this is a point that you should definitely keep in mind when drafting your patent application.

Global Patent Issues

As the development of patenting in countries such as China and India are increasing in importance, there are key global challenges the industry faces in successfully patenting across regions. Dako Europe share their three top tips for patenting worldwide:

1. Recognise the value of innovation The overall number one tip that I would give is universal, it is understanding the innovation that you are evaluating. Whether it is your own innovation and you are trying to build a patent portfolio around it, or it is a third party’s innovation and you are trying to figure out how that could be used for growth, why you should be interested in their IP and why would they should be interested in yours.

2. Understand different business cultures There are regional differences in the business environment and the way people view intellectual property in general. Understanding the cultural differences regarding intellectual property, regarding innovation, regarding how people do business, having someone who you can rely on to give you a good overview of that business environment, is the second tip.

3. Understand regulatory policy It is beneficial no matter where you litigate to get a good understanding of the governmental public policy interest and goals behind the patenting system. As countries develop more and more, their own inventors are going to be interested in having a patent system that allows them to grow. Establishing a relationship and an understanding of the regulatory governmental environments around the intellectual property industry in those countries early is imperative.

Nailing those three parts, understanding your own business goals, the business environment of the region and an understanding of the intellectual property public policy environment in the region, can help your company craft an intellectual property strategy for that region that allows you to achieve the growth that you want in that country. It also allows the people in that country who are potential partners and potential joint investors in a strong IP system to also get the objectives that they want.

THREE TIPS FOR GLOBAL LITIGATION

17WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

The Truth about Technology Transfer Licensing

Innovation & IP Leaders

Preben Kristensen is a Senior Business Developer at Technical University of Denmark. Preben is responsible for both developing and negotiating licences or sales of IPRs on emerging technologies (including patent prosecution) into viable businesses, as well as all matters relating to patents, be it budget, portfolio review, process definition, prosecution, patent agents communication and policy decision.

PREBEN KRISTENSEN

Maya Fowell Preben, why is it important for the industry to embrace technology transfer licensing?

Preben Kristensen I think it is because that is the way they get access to high level research and development ongoing at universities. Not only does the industry get all this good stuff, but you also have a dissemination of technology that otherwise might not be spread or utilised by companies in the same way. I think it is fairly well-documented that if you have cooperation with universities you become more competitive, you will have a better turnover; better profits and you will be more innovative.

MF What would you say are the top two benefits of participating in technology transfer licensing?

PK Number one would be access to better technology, that allows the industry to have better solutions, cheaper, more profitable and faster i.e. just technology that makes you more competitive. I think that is really the top benefit and it kind of sums it all up. The other benefit is that you get to be in touch with universities with cutting edge technology; you know what is going on and you have the opportunity to take on that technology before everybody else does, not after your competitors have taken it on.

MF The first benefit you mentioned was access to better technology; in your opinion what is wrong with the current technology that is being used?

PK There is nothing wrong with the current technology, but if something better gets developed or put together by universities, why would you not want to use it? There is a lot of innovation going on in the industry: if your company does not take on new technology and a competitor does, you will immediately be behind them as they continue to be faster and better suited for competition. If you do not want to lose your competitive edge you need to take on new technology all the time; I think that is a well-known fact. Development moves forward whether you come along or not, adopting it is a choice you have to make yourself.

MF What are the drawbacks that keep people from participating in technology transfer licencing, and how can they be overcome?

PK I think there are two; one is there is a perception or prejudice that universities are greedy, that they want all the money in the world for these very cool innovations and inventions that come out of them. The other is that universities do not necessarily understand that there is a lot of risk associated with putting in and taking on this new technology and bringing it forward to the market instead of just taking it on earlier. The way to overcome that prejudice is to make it clear that the universities understand that there is a difference between some fancy technology development at university and then actually having it on the market, having it approved and ready for the market. At least at my university we are fairly good at making a risk-sharing agreement. So you may pay a lump sum when the agreement is made for this technology transfer that ensures that the university gets some of its costs covered and also ensures that the company that takes the licence is interested in developing it further instead of just shelving it, shelving the technology now that they have a licence to it. Their competitors cannot take the licence and everybody is happy.

18WWW.PATENTCONGRESS.COM

Typically what we do is we build in some milestones, it can be patenting milestones, national phases can be granted the patent in different jurisdictions, it can also be commercial milestones that a prototype is made, that it is ready for market, that it is on the market and selling in some kind of quantity. Then typically we also want to put in running royalties so once the product is on the market and starts selling, somehow there is a royalty that then goes back to the university that made this deal. That is also to a certain extent based on the fact that Danish universities at least have to take a market price and so we often prefer this model where you take money along the way. So as you move forward and the product actually is successful and gets on to the market and starts making a turnover for the company then the royalty also starts flowing to the universities, but not necessarily before that. That also of course means that for whatever reasons if a product fails in getting to the market well, the money spent by the company is not that big and for the university the price that was agreed on actually happened to be a smaller price but it’s still the right price.Finally I should maybe also say that sometimes you can do a windfall; so if something really hits the big time out there the university also likes to get a kickback or a higher royalty rate at that point, and that is again back to the market price. But I think the main thing is that universities are very ready to listen to different ways of doing this and if you can argue why your business model is better, how you are going to market this and how you see the market and the universities, then we are ready to listen. The TTOs that are here today, they accept that yes, this is unclear and most IT companies have a good understanding of how to bring a product to the market, how to commercialise it, how to monetise it, than the university does. So my point is, or my message is that universities are ready to listen to the risks that are and so those drawbacks that are out there can be addressed by making a proper licencing agreement.

MF Can you give me an example of technology transfer licensing working so far?

PK I mean there are a number of agreements that the university I sit at has been doing; last year we had ten spin-outs, or 11 spin-outs, depending on how you count it, but almost a dozen spin-outs where technology was transferred from DTU to the spin-out. A spin-out is a start-up company that starts from scratch and needs to go out and get investment. The deals that were made there made sure that no money was being paid, or very little money was being paid up until the point the start-up begins to actually make some money and have some turnover, then the agreement will start also paying off DTU with royalties. There is actually a Danish company called Nordic Power Converters that got an agreement last year and they are actually moving along very well and they just got a second investment. They still do not have a product that is being sold but they are moving ahead quite well and we think it is a very promising technology. DTU has had a few exits where a fair amount of money has been made, we are talking millions of pounds at exit time, and so of course those are success stories for the university. Naturally there will also be companies that do not make it for whatever reason: the technology was not ready, the team was not the right; there are many reasons why things do not work out.

Universities are, I would say, quite ready to accept a lot of risk. I think we protect technology that most companies would not want to accept because it is too risky.

MF Would you say that technology transfer licensing is something that the Danes are only participating in, or are you seeing engagement globally?

PK I definitely see it globally; it is ongoing all over the world. There is a lot of talk about innovation and renewal of your business and I also think there is a lot more R&D being outsourced so it is not in-house. Instead of having your R&D in-house you go out and buy it promising technologies, promising companies and that I think should also include scouring universities for promising technologies to take in, or at least scouting the start-up world for when they start to show, or have a business that looks profitable, that the bigger companies come in. I think the latter works very well; I think the first one, taking the university technology right out of the hands of the technology and then taking it from there, there is more work needed to be done in that area. I guess it is a question of if it is very early, what is the time to market horizon? Is it ready next month or is it going to be ten years down the road before it is ready? Naturally that makes a huge difference for a new company planning to invest in an area. But I see TTO offices starting to become more and more professional all over the world. I think in the UK they have been around for a long time, Stateside they are very good. I would say Continental Europe is also really starting to move along in this area, understanding how businesses work, and businesses are also starting to understand how universities work and what the cultures are internally at universities.

MF Preben, you have spoken a lot about the risk involved with tech transfer and the perception that people have that universities are greedy and only want money, so what do you wish more people knew about technology transfer licensing?

PK Yes, I think I am just going to reiterate myself here and say universities understand the risks that companies take on when they take on technology from universities, hence universities are not greedy, they are ready to work together with companies and make a deal that ensures that everybody is happy. We argue that from the TTO side we actually understand quite well how companies are working and if they are ready to spill the beans with us, tell us how they are seeing the market, how they are going to approach the market, we will be ready to work with them and make sure that a deal is made that is to the advantage of all the parties involved. If you do not want to spill the beans with the TTOs, if you do not want to say where you are coming from for whatever reason then you may have the more usual reaction or confirmation of the prejudice that the incumbents just want a high price for their technology up front. So I think it is an issue about companies or universities starting to understand each other’s objectives better; a lot of universities in Eastern Europe are publically funded and so that means that there is another concern to be made on top of the economic one. It could be political, it could be innovation bias, and it could be generating growth. But that is what it is about, understanding each other and then a good deal can be made, at least that is my experience from the TTO that I work in, or for the university that I work in.

I think we protect technology that most companies would not want to accept because it is too risky

If something better gets developed or put together by universities, why would you not want to use it?

2015

Conference: 29-30th September 2015Workshop Day: 28th September 2015Crowne Plaza, Copenhagen Towers, Copenhagen, Denmark

For more information or if you have already decided to join us then you can book your place one of the following ways:

www.patentcongress.com | enquire@iqpc.co.uk | +44 207 036 1300

This is just a small sample of the sessions covering these topics. Find out more by downloading the full agenda

If any of the topics discussed in the whitepaper are of your professional concern then you might be interested in attending 9th Annual Global Patent Congress.

Here’s a quick snapshot of how closely the event programme is aligned to the five concerns in question.

Patent and Litigation:The most successful global patent litigation strategy is - presented by Catherine Lacavera, Director, IP and Litigation, Google Inc.

Monetisation, Licensing and Marketplace:The impact if SEPs and FRAND on your bottom line - presented by Clemens Heusch, Head of European Litigation, Nokia

Patent Management and Technology:Strike the right sourcing balance to effectively support the IP function and business – lead by Federica Lolli, General Cousel, Datalogic

Global Patent Issues:Generating a holistic grip of global patents: navigating successfully through challenging waters. Session lead by: Dr Matthias Zigann, Judge, Munich Regional Court I, German

His Honour Michael Fysh QS SC, Former Senior Judge, Patent County Court, England and Wales;

Christopher Gasser, Adjunct Judge, Swiss Federal Patent Court, Switzerland

Innovation: The future impact of global patent mapping and rating: the transparency paradigm – Frederic Caillaud, Director of Licensing, L’Oreal