Catalog Advanced Search

Search by Categories
Search in Packages
Search by Format
Search by Type
Search by Date Range
Products are filtered by different dates, depending on the combination of live and on-demand components that they contain, and on whether any live components are over or not.
Start
End
Search by Keyword
Sort By
  • Unwired Planet: Impact on Global FRAND Litigation and Negotiations

    Contains 3 Component(s) Includes a Live Web Event on 09/30/2020 at 12:00 PM (EDT)

    Nothing in FRAND is simple, and the world after Unwired Planet is dauntingly uncertain. This webinar brings together litigators from the U.S., China, and Germany, as well as a global SEP owner, to consider the likely behavior of courts and litigants outside of London.

    In August, after the UK Supreme Court issued its decision in Unwired Planet and Conversant cases, the ruling was heralded by some observers as “a major victory” for SEP owners everywhere. The Court confirmed that English courts can set globally-applicable FRAND licensing rates, can issue UK-wide FRAND injunctions after a finding of infringement, and also that SEP owners don’t need to offer the same royalty rate to similarly situated implementers. British lawyers, suffering headwinds from Brexit, were jubilant at the prospect of London becoming a global hotspot for FRAND litigation. 

    But nothing in FRAND is simple, and the world after Unwired Planet is dauntingly uncertain. This webinar brings together litigators from the U.S., China, and Germany, as well as a counselor to SEP owners, to consider the likely behavior of courts and litigants outside of London. 

    Among the topics they will discuss: 

    • If litigation in London results in high royalty rates, will companies will just leave the UK market? 
    • Going forward, will other courts seek to set global FRAND licenses even in the absence of the parties’ agreement to a global determination?  
    • Will some foreign courts react hostilely to London’s breach of territoriality?  
    • Unwired Planet relies heavily on the particulars of the FRAND policy of ETSI. How much weight would its findings would have for a court, whether in the UK or elsewhere, assessing participants’ obligations under FRAND policies adopted by different SSOs?  
    • The likely rise in the use of international anti-suit injunctions, where a court in one jurisdiction tries to prevent a party from pursuing litigation in another jurisdiction.  

    Aloys Hüttermann

    Michalski Hüttermann

    is a co-founder of Michalski Huetterman, an IP boutique law firm based in Germany with an active patent litigation practice. 

    David Long

    Essential Patent LLC

    has over twenty-five years of telecommunications experience, including over twenty years leading complex patent litigation in federal district and appellate courts. He founded his firm, Essential Patent LLC in 2016. Earlier he was a partner at Howrey and other firms, and clerked for the Hon. S. Smith at the Federal Circuit.

    Timothy Syrett

    Wilmer Hale Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP

    an IP and antitrust litigator, is partner at WilmerHale. Tim has litigated through trial a variety of issues relating to SEPs, including determination of FRAND royalties and defenses to infringement arising from standard-setting participation. 

    Lili Wu

    Han Kun Law Offices

    is a partner in Han Kun Law Offices, a full-service Chinese law firm. A patent lawyer, Lili has represented clients in several court cases which have been recognized as typical cases by the PRC Supreme People’s Court and the Beijing High Court. 

  • A New Frontier in AI: Training AI Applications Using Sensitive Information and the Potential Data Privacy Risks Involved (RECORDING)

    Contains 5 Component(s), Includes Credits

    This webinar will describe the issues involved with training AI models using sensitive information. Attendees will also learn about the data privacy risks and legal implications that arise when AI models are trained using sensitive information. Lastly, this webinar will discuss data science techniques that can prevent the problem of “unintended memorization.”

    Recently, companies have built a new frontier of AI applications that perform predictive tasks using sensitive information. For example, today there are AI applications that predict a patient’s health issues or infer the next sentence to write in a private email. Building AI applications by training AI models with sensitive information, however, presents significant data privacy risks. If improperly trained, an AI model can unintentionally “memorize” rare or unique sensitive information included in a large set of training data. This creates the risk that the AI model will disclose the sensitive information “as-is” in response to new, previously unseen input data. This is particularly problematic for AI applications that are widely used by the public because hackers can exploit this vulnerability to extract the sensitive information. Hackers can input different prefixed texts to “inferentially attack” an improperly trained AI application to extract the sensitive information that was included in the training data set during the training process. This unintended “memorization” is also a threat to AI models trained to infer word associations from a business’s internal information. A simple inference of uncommon word combinations from the business’s internal information can reveal trade secrets. 

    This webinar will describe the issues involved with training AI models using sensitive information. Attendees will also learn about the data privacy risks and legal implications that arise when AI models are trained using sensitive information. Lastly, this webinar will discuss data science techniques that can prevent the problem of “unintended memorization.”

    Anthony Glosson

    Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP

    Anthony Glosson of Kilpatrick Townsend, focuses his practice on cybersecurity, privacy, risk management, and regulatory compliance matters. Tony is the author of several publications in the field of technology law and regularly dives into the technical aspects of enterprise network security, business continuity, and incident response.

    Sameer Vadera

    Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP

    Sameer Vadera is a patent attorney with Kilpatrick Townsend who counsels industry-leading clients on building valuable IP portfolios for high-tech innovations. He has managed domestic and global patent portfolios, driven IP protection strategies across major markets, and counseled enterprises on boosting IP assets by increasing enterprise-wide innovation capture. Mr. Vadera has prepared and prosecuted patent applications directed to a wide range of technologies, including machine learning and artificial intelligence, Blockchain, and network security. Additionally, Mr. Vadera frequently publishes and presents on data ownership and data privacy issues in the context of artificial intelligence. Mr. Vadera is also a co-founder of Triangle IP, LLC, an AI-powered innovation management platform that intelligently assists enterprises with efficiently building IP portfolios.

  • Is Alice Pulling Manufacturing Patents Down the Rabbit Hole? (RECORDING)

    Contains 5 Component(s), Includes Credits

    Our panelists will discuss how the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility are not being applied to method of manufacturing patents. Do these cases push the Alice/Mayo test too far? Do they further conflate patent eligibility with obviousness or enablement? And do they put manufacturing, mechanical, and electrical patents more at risk for eligibility challenges (and cancellation)? Join us as we discuss these cases and the current state of patent eligibility.

    Since Alice, most patent eligibility challenges (and the ongoing debate) have been related to software or bio-pharm patents. Even after Alice, most practitioners considered claims drawn to manufacturing tangible goods or incorporating physical components immune from patent eligibility challenges. But the recent decisions from the Federal Circuit in American Axle have put manufacturing, mechanical, and electrical patents at risk.  

    It is a fractured set of opinions that includes two split-panel decisions and an en banc denial with six separate concurring or dissenting opinions. The claims were drawn to methods of manufacturing propeller shafts with liners designed to damp vibrations. In the first panel decision, the majority affirmed the district court’s ruling that all claims were ineligible. In the revised panel decision, the majority remanded some claims that included a “positioning” step for further consideration. The dissent sharply criticized the majority’s analysis in both opinions. The court split 6-6 against en banc review of the revised opinion.  

    Our panelists will discuss how the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility are not being applied to method of manufacturing patents.  Do these cases push the Alice/Mayo test too far? Do they further conflate patent eligibility with obviousness or enablement? And do they put manufacturing, mechanical, and electrical patents more at risk for eligibility challenges (and cancellation)? Join us as we discuss these cases and the current state of patent eligibility. 

    John Cheek

    DRiV Incorporated

    is Enterprise Chief Intellectual Property for Tenneco Inc., one of the world’s leading designers, manufacturers and distributors of clean air and ride performance products and systems for the automotive, commercial truck, and off-highway markets and the aftermarket.  In addition to his enterprise role, Mr. Cheek also leads the IP group Tenneco’s DRiV division, which focuses on ride performance and aftermarket automotive parts.  Prior to joining Tenneco in 2017, Mr. Cheek was senior IP leader at Caterpillar Inc., where he served in leadership roles in the US and Europe. Prior to joining Caterpillar in 1997, Mr. Cheek was in private practice. Mr. Cheek received an undergraduate degree in Mathematics and Economics from Wabash College and completed additional undergraduate studies in Physics and Mechanical Engineering at the University of Dayton and Bradley University. He also received a J.D. from the University of Dayton and an MBA from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. He is a regular lecturer on intellectual property strategy and management at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and currently serves on the Executive Committee for ACPC and the Executive Committee and Board of Directors for IPO. 

    Timothy McAnulty

    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

    is a partnerat Finnegan, where he practices all aspects of patent law, includingdistrict court litigations, post-grant proceedings, due diligence, strategiccounseling, freedom-to-operate studies, opinion writing, and portfoliodevelopment. He represents clients across a wide range of technologies andworks closely with them to develop strategies aligned with their businessgoals.  

    Jeffrey Totten

    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

    is also a partner at Finnegan, where he focuses his practice on patent litigation, trade-secret litigation, and client counseling in the mechanical, electrical, and e-commerce fields. Jeff has represented clients in multiple U.S. district courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He has extensive experience managing litigation teams involved in complex intellectual-property disputes in the United States and abroad. Jeff, who co-chairs IPO’s Post-Grant Patent Office Practice Committee, also represents clients in matters before the U.S. Patent Office, including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Covered Business Method Review (CBM), and reexamination proceedings. 

  • Compulife: Datascraping and Trade Secret Law (RECORDING)

    Contains 7 Component(s), Includes Credits

    A decision this spring by the Eleventh Circuit appears to offer publishers of data a novel way to pursue website scrapers by using trade secret law. The decision is thus also an important possible threat to companies that depend on others’ data as fodder for their artificial intelligence solutions. Panelists include a top IP lawyer at a global tech company active in AI and two litigators.

    A decision this spring by the Eleventh Circuit appears to offer publishers of data a novel way to pursue website scrapers by using trade secret law. The decision is thus also an important possible threat to companies that depend on others’ data as fodder for their artificial intelligence solutions. Panelists include a top IP lawyer at a global tech company active in AI and two litigators. 

    In Compulife v. Newman, the Eleventh Circuit overturned a lower court’s conclusion that the public availability of information the defendants scraped from a website precluded a claim for trade secret misappropriation under Florida’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. In reversing the lower court’s dismissal of the trade secret claims, the appeals court stressed that “the simple fact that the quotes taken were publicly available does not automatically resolve the question in the defendants’ favor.” This raised the eyebrows of some experts, pointing to “reasonable efforts” as the sina qua non of trade secrecy. The appellate court also delved into the definition of “improper means” under trade secret law, specifically raising the question of whether using a bot to collect masses of data meets that criterion.  

    The panel will discuss: 

    • Whether this case offers website publishers a new arrow in the quiver to combat unwanted website scrapers beyond “typical” claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and a contract claim for breach of the underlying terms of service 
    • Other important cases involving datascraping including Van Buren v. U.S (recently granted certoriari before the U.S. Supreme Court), HiQ v. LinkedIn (cert petition pending), and Digidrill v. Petrolink (5th Circ., July 2020).

    David Conrad

    Fish & Richardson, PC

    is a principal attorney at Fish & Richardson. He provides legal services to clients in matters relating to business litigation, patent litigation, and trade secret litigation. David’s clients benefit from his in-depth knowledge of technologies used in e-commerce and web site systems, computer network architecture and computer software. 

    Kenneth Corsello

    IBM

    is an IP law counsel at IBM, where he focuses on drafting and negotiating patent licenses and assignment agreements. In his 15 years at IBM, he has worked on a variety of IP matters, including patent procurement, litigation, IP transactional agreements, and trade-secret related issues. Before joining IBM, Ken was a law clerk to Chief Judge Glenn Archer at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit and an Associate Solicitor in the USPTO. Ken is the chair of the IPO’s Trade Secrets committee. 

    James Pooley

    James Pooley, PLC

    founded his own firm in Silicon Valley in 2015, after serving for five years as the Deputy Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization. His legal treatise, “Trade Secrets,” is updated semi-annually. He acts as co-counsel in trade secret and patent litigation, and acts as consultant regarding trade secret and cybersecurity risks. Earlier he was an IP litigator and partner at Morrison & Foerster and Milbank, among other firms. He is also the author of Secrets: Managing Information Assets in the Age of Cyberespionage. 

  • Drafting Patents to Ground Electric Power: AI and Section 101 (RECORDING)

    Contains 8 Component(s), Includes Credits

    The Federal Circuit’s reasoning in Electrical Power Group v. Alsom has zapped more than twenty software patents since 2016, invalidating them as abstract under Alice. Particularly at risk are inventions in the booming area of artificial intelligence (“AI”). Our panelists, two in-house counsel at technology companies and a law firm expert, will analyze the Electrical Power Group line of cases and provide patent prosecutors with practical advice on how to avoid its pitfalls for AI related inventions.

    The Federal Circuit’s reasoning in Electrical Power Group v. Alsom has zapped more than twenty software patents since 2016, invalidating them as abstract under Alice. Particularly at risk are inventions in the booming area of artificial intelligence (“AI”). Our panelists, two in-house counsel at technology companies and a law firm expert, will analyze the Electrical Power Group line of cases and provide patent prosecutors with practical advice on how to avoid its pitfalls for AI related inventions. 

    In Electric Power, the Federal Circuit found that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results constitute an abstract idea. Many software-related inventions in AI technologies do exactly that. Recently the Federal Circuit has even expanded its analysis to find that “entering, transmitting, locating, compressing, storing, and displaying data” and “capturing and transmitting data from one device to another” are abstract ideas. 

    Our panel will also consider more than a year’s experience with the USPTO’s 2019 patentable subject matter guidelines for software inventions. The guidelines aim to incorporate the Federal Circuit’s § 101 jurisprudence, but there is daylight between the two.  This forces prosecution practitioners and PTAB practitioners to use both the guidelines and Federal Circuit case law when arguing at the USPTO. Otherwise, an attorney may win in the Office only to lose on appeal.

    In addition, the panelists will share lessons from six PTAB ex parte decisions on this issue that were recently deemed precedential or informative, including both affirmances and reversals of examiner rejections.

    Thomas Burton

    Siemens Corp.

    is a senior IP attorney at Siemens Corp. He provides “full service” IP support to Siemens Industry, Inc. Smart Infrastructure businesses in the US, including IP counseling, preparing and negotiating IP related transactions (with expertise in software licensing), IP patent portfolio development, M&A IP due diligence, and IP litigation enforcement/defense. Tom is a member of IPO’s Software Related Inventions Committee, where he leads a subcommittee on patent subject matter eligibility.  

    Michael Kiklis

    Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

    is a member of Bass Berry & Sims, where his practice focuses on patent litigation and PTAB trials. He also handles appeals to the Federal Circuit from his cases, having now been involved in over 20 appeals. He is an expert in section 101 patent eligibility issues.

    Christine Lam

    NetApp

    Christine Lam is director of IP at NetApp. She is a legal executive experienced in IP protection, transactions, and litigation and an expert in patent eligibility, open source licenses, and complex litigation. Christine also specializes in developing patent strategies to protect cloud-related and open source technologies. She often advises on the intersection of three different areas of laws – patents, open source, and standards organization.

  • Sisvel v. Haier: Impact on FRAND Negotiations and Litigation (RECORDING)

    Contains 8 Component(s), Includes Credits

    In this program a balanced panel of experts will analyze the latest milestone in the escalating battles over 5G SEPs. The July decision in Sisvel v. Haier by Germany’s highest court, the Federal Court of Justice (GFCJ), is considered a game-changer in Europe. It is the first FRAND-related case to be heard at the top German court since the Court of Justice of the European Union’s landmark 2015 Huawei v ZTE decision.

    In this program a balanced panel of experts will analyze the latest milestone in the escalating battles over cellular technology SEPs. The July decision in Sisvel v. Haier by Germany’s highest court, the Federal Court of Justice (GFCJ), is considered by some commentators to be a game-changer in Europe. It is the first FRAND-related case to be heard at the top German court since the Court of Justice of the European Union’s landmark 2015 Huawei v ZTE decision. 

    Many commentators see the decision overall as better news to patentees than to implementers. The court took a tough line on “hold out” maneuvers, requiring implementers to expressly state they will take a license on any terms that are found to be FRAND and to not use delay tactics to stall talks. Patent owners are not required to offer the same terms and conditions in all offers, and can choose which patents to license, by country or worldwide. 

    Implementers question whether all of Sisvel’s elements square with the CJEU’s approach in Huawei v. ZTE. And in Europe as in the U.S., implementers are looking to antitrust law for solutions. Our panelists will also discuss: 

    European competition authorities’ investigation into complaints about SEP owners’ refusal to license automotive component suppliers. 

    Antitrust allegations in the United States involving similar issues concerning the “license to all” vs. “access to all” debate 

    Recent developments regarding SEPs at the U.S. ITC. 

    The soon-expected ruling by the UK Supreme Court in Unwired Planet v. Huawei.  

    Erik Puknys

    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

    Erik Puknys, a partner in Finnegan, is a patent litigator who has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in district courts around the U.S., in the Federal Circuit, and in the U.S. Supreme Court. He recently authored “Strategic Considerations for the Escalating SEP Battles.”

    Matthias Schneider

    Audi

    Matthias Schneider is Chief Licensing Officer (patents) at Audi AG. Earlier he was Vice President for IPR at Siemens Communication Devices and Global Head of Defensive Licensing at Nokia Corp. He has been the lead negotiator of numerous high-value licensing deals, both offensive and defensive, and is the named inventor on more than 20 granted patents related to user interface and communication technology.

    Jonathan Velasco

    Qualcomm Incorporated

    Jonathan Velasco is Sr. Director Legal Counsel at Qualcomm, providing legal counsel and oversight for Qualcomm's membership and participation activities in Standards Development Organizations and other external technology collaboration engagements.  Earlier, he was patent group lead overseeing patent filing and prosecution at Qualcomm in technologies related to wireless communication, processor, memory, RF, displays, sensors and multimedia. Jon is a member of IPO’s Standards Setting committee.

  • Secondary Considerations: Latest Guideposts (RECORDING)

    Contains 7 Component(s), Includes Credits

    This webinar will review and analyze the latest judicial guideposts regarding the role and weight of objective indicia in evaluating the non-obviousness of a claimed invention. Uncertainty in this area dates back to Graham v. Deere, where the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly endorsed the use of secondary considerations but failed to clarify their role.

    This webinar will review and analyze the latest judicial guideposts regarding the role and weight of objective indicia in evaluating the non-obviousness of a claimed invention. Uncertainty in this area dates back to Graham v. Deere, where the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly endorsed the use of secondary considerations but failed to clarify their role.  

    Recently both the Federal Circuit and PTAB have clarified the nexus aspect of this issue. A patentee generally must establish a nexus between the objective indicia and the claimed invention. This is most easily done when the commercial product is coextensive with the claimed invention because the patentee is entitled to a presumption of a nexus between the associated objective indicia and the claimed invention. In Fox Factory, the Federal Circuit explained that whether a commercial embodiment is “coextensive” with a claimed invention is often a question of degree and that although “perfect correspondence” is not required, a patentee must show the product is “essentially the claimed invention.”  

    By contrast, the three PTAB cases, Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc. (Jan. 2020; precedential April 2020), Ex parte Whirlpool Corp., (Oct. 2013; informative, April 2020) and Ex parte Thompson, (March 2014; informative April 2020), show the PTAB willing to find objective indicia arguments persuasive in AIA trials and appeals from prosecution rejections. The last two cases are rare examples of the PTAB making a case involving examiner rejection “informative”. The PTAB decisions lay out a roadmap of the kind of evidence needed to establish nexus.  

    Panelists will discuss the current landscape and share drafting and prosecution tips for strengthening the nexus case. 

  • Life Sciences Developments: Patentability at the EPO (RECORDING)

    Contains 7 Component(s), Includes Credits

    This webinar, which is the third in our recent European Practice Webinar Series, will address life sciences developments and, specifically, patentability at the EPO. Our panel, which is composed of experienced attorneys based in Europe, will discuss a wide array of issues

    This webinar, which is the third in our recent European Practice Webinar Series, will address life sciences developments and, specifically, patentability at the EPO. Our panel, which is composed of experienced attorneys based in Europe, will discuss a wide array of issues including:

    • New restrictions on the patentability of plants and animals made by “essentially biological processes”
    • Recent additions to the EPO’s Guidelines for Examination and how you might use them to advocate for your clients
    • EPO decision T 694/16 on novelty of personalized medicine claims
    • Article 83 of the EPC (sufficiency of disclosure) in Kymab/Regeneron
    • Article 87 of the EPC (priority)

    Manisha Desai, co-chair of IPO’s European Practice Committee, will moderate the webinar. Insights will be offered by Tim Hewson of the U.K.’s Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, along with fellow European Patent Attorneys Cyra Nargolwalla and Kathryn Eldridge.

  • Brexit and the Unified Patent Court (RECORDING)

    Contains 7 Component(s), Includes Credits

    IP practice in Europe involves many interesting issues, and none more so than the implications of Brexit and developments concerning the proposed Unified Patent Court (UPC). This webinar will bring together well-known IP practitioners from the U.K.’s Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and IPO’s European Practice Committee to discuss the latest updates relating to these topics and to provide insight on what the future of practice in Europe will look like.

    IP practice in Europe involves many interesting issues, and none more so than the  implications of Brexit and developments concerned the proposed Unified Patent Court (UPC). This webinar will bring together well-known IP practitioners from the U.K.’s Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and IPO’s European Practice Committee to discuss the latest updates relating to these topics and to provide insight on what the future of practice in Europe will look like. They will address issues including:

    • The Impact of Brexit on IP 
    • The UPC and the Unitary Patent Package
    • The Status of Ratification of the UPC 

    Speakers include Tony Rollins (former CIPA President) and Alicia Instone (CIPA Vice-President), as well as IPO European Practice Committee co-vice chair Aloys Hüttermann and committee member John Pegram. Dan Staudt, IPO President, will moderate the discussion. This webinar will present an excellent opportunity to learn more about IP practice in Europe. 

  • Brexit and the Unified Patent Court

    Contains 12 Component(s), Includes Credits

    IP practice in Europe involves many interesting issues, and none more so than the implications of Brexit and developments concerning the proposed Unified Patent Court (UPC). This webinar will bring together well-known IP practitioners from the U.K.’s Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and IPO’s European Practice Committee to discuss the latest updates relating to these topics and to provide insight on what the future of practice in Europe will look like.

    IP practice in Europe involves many interesting issues, and none more so than the  implications of Brexit and developments concerned the proposed Unified Patent Court (UPC). This webinar will bring together well-known IP practitioners from the U.K.’s Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and IPO’s European Practice Committee to discuss the latest updates relating to these topics and to provide insight on what the future of practice in Europe will look like. They will address issues including:

    • The Impact of Brexit on IP 
    • The UPC and the Unitary Patent Package
    • The Status of Ratification of the UPC 

    Speakers include Tony Rollins (former CIPA President) and Alicia Instone (CIPA Vice-President), as well as IPO European Practice Committee co-vice chair Aloys Hüttermann and committee member John Pegram. Dan Staudt, IPO President, will moderate the discussion. This webinar will present an excellent opportunity to learn more about IP practice in Europe. 

    Dan Staudt (Moderator)

    Siemens Corp.

    Daniel Staudt is Vice President and Chief IP Counsel of the Siemens Corporation IP Department. Dan is responsible for all IP legal matters for the Siemens North American Operating Companies including its digital industries, smart infrastructure, and energy businesses. He is President of IPO and has been practicing IP law for over 30 years.

    Aloys Hüttermann

    Michalski Hüttermann

    is a co-founder of Michalski Huetterman, an IP boutique law firm based in Germany with an active patent litigation practice. 

    Alicia Instone

    Cleveland Scott York

    Alicia Instone is a Chartered Patent Attorney, a European Patent Attorney and a Chartered UK Trade Mark Attorney at Cleveland Scott York, an IP boutique with offices in the UK and Europe, based in the Hertfordshire Office. Currently, Alicia works particularly in the fields of chemistry, dyes and pigments photochromic materials, medical devices, laboratory consumables, traffic control, oil & gas and natural sciences in general. She sits on the Council for the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys as Vice-President and is an active member of its Trade Mark Committee.

    John Pegram

    Fish & Richardson, PC

    John B. Pegram is Of Counsel at Fish & Richardson P.C., a multi-office law firm concentrating in IP and technology law, based in the New York City office. John has been engaged in patent, trademark and copyright litigation, licensing, opinion and counseling matters of all types for over 50 years. He has been, and continues to be, active in bar associations, including that he served as President of NYIPLA and serves as a member of the US Bar – EPO Liaison Council and IPO’s European Practice Committee. He is a frequent author and lecturer on U.S. and international IP and litigation topics.

    Tony Rollins

    Rollins IP Strategies Ltd.

    Tony Rollins of Rollins IP Strategies Ltd. is an experienced IP practitioner who is based in the United Kingdom. At the Wellcome Foundation, he handled a diverse range of work in the pharmaceutical, diagnostic, animal health, environmental health and hygiene areas. He later served as Vice President of Intellectual Property of Amersham plc, headed up the European Patents group of MSD, and also led MSD’s Japanese patent department. Tony is the current chair of the International Liaison Committee and the former President of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys. He is President of the Global Network of National IP Practitioner Associations.