The Fordham IP Conference in New York is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. As the conference heads into its second quarter-century, the programme and faculty are as impressive as ever. It remains a magnet for key opinion leaders from all areas of intellectual property.

Whilst the rain poured down across Manhattan, the conference began with a tribute to the Conference and to its alter ego, Professor Hugh Hansen. Former Dean of Fordham Law School, John Feerick reflected on the genesis of the conference in the early 1990s and the uncertainty of the road that lay ahead. He noted that it was Hugh’s personal courage and determination which had led to the success of the Conference.

The first session was a General Counsel Roundtable during which the GCs from Cisco Systems, Viacom, Elsevier and Microsoft outlined the function of the GC and the importance of IP to each of their roles. It was noted that IP is integral to all technology companies and cannot be put into a silo. Moreover if you don’t thrive when under pressure, being a GC is not the right role for you. However if you like addressing problems that no-one else has been able to solve for fun, and if you don’t mind making left-field suggestions, you may be suited. All the GCs were united in their view that the importance of IP has grown incrementally, the dominance of various rights such as copyright and patents has changed over time and that governments around the world have generally acted with appropriate caution.

When asked about the role of the Courts, it was noted that Judges have always had to react to a changing landscape – particularly in the US but also in Europe. On the whole, they have done well in challenging situations and had to cope with fields of technology which are changing more rapidly than ever before. However, it was noted that the arrival of developments such as railroads, sewerage and electricity in the late 1800s would have changed the lives of ordinary citizens as much or more than modern developments such as the internet. Judges today need to do as they have always done – apply the law to the best of their ability bearing in mind the need to achieve justice and be proportionate.

A final, sobering message was that the relative political stability which has existed for the past 70 years may be under threat and there was a duty on all to be vigilant.

The second session looked at the topic of Brexit and IP. Margot Fröhlinger, the Principal Director of Patent Law and Multilateral Affairs, spoke first. She addressed the state of implementation of the Agreement. 12 have ratified so far but not Germany and the UK. Both however are on track – according to the latest reports. Turning to the impact of Brexit, Margot noted that most commentators had initially assumed Brexit was the death knell for the UK’s participation in the UPC and possibly for the whole project. Over time, these views had softened but it was still a surprise when the UKIPO announced on 28 November 2016 that the UK was going to proceed with ratification. Nevertheless this was seen as very positive news by proponents of the system. Margot considered that the UK’s participation could be secured if there was sufficient political will, given the marginal influence of the CJEU in the UPC regime. Moreover in the unlikely event that the UK left the system, arrangements will be put in place to ensure that participants are not prejudiced. Margot felt that the system would be impoverished without the UK judges and practitioners. Panellist Joel Smith thought that there was political will for the UK participation but it was just one of many pieces in a very complicated puzzle. Panellist Trevor Cook wondered if we may end up with the UPC system applying in the UK but not unitary patents. Judge Klaus Grabinski thought that all options remained on the table and Margot Fröhlinger pointed to Denmark’s involvement in the Brussels Regulation as a precedent.

The second speaker was Mr Justice Richard Arnold who pointed to the draft “Great Repeal Act” which he noted does almost exactly the opposite of its title – repealing nothing but rather converting EU law into UK law at the moment of departure. The Act will also repeal the European Communities Act and empower government bodies to make necessary adjustments to the law to reflect the discontinuance of the supremacy of EU law. But each of the three main sources of EU law – CJEU case-law, Directives and Regulations would face challenges in conversion. For instance, converting the EU Trade Mark Regulation into UK law is much easier said than done with all sorts of options available. The status of existing CJEU decisions, provisionally to be enshrined as Supreme Court precedents, is clear enough if slightly perplexing but the authority of future decisions is not addressed in the draft Bill. Future CJEU decisions will carry weight in the UK but how much is not clear.

The middle of the day featured sessions on IP in China and on Trade Secrets. For a patent lawyer both were interesting – particularly the notion that trade secrets may have an increasingly important role in many innovators’ toolkits.

Later in the afternoon the schedule returned to mainstream patent issues – doctrine of equivalents and file wrapper estoppel. Judge Klaus Grabinski examined the provisions of the EPC 2000 concerning the scope of claims and the German test for determining non-literal infringement. Sir Robin Jacob suggested that the test was far too complicated and needed simplification although Klaus noted that the German test bore strong similarities to the Improver test devised by the English Court. Shimako Kato then mentioned a recent Supreme Court case in Japan involving enantiomers which bore similarities to the pemetrexed case which has been heard by the Supreme Courts in Germany and the UK.

Judge Edgar Brinkman considered the Dutch approach – both literal and non-literal. The Dutch have long adopted file wrapper estoppel even though it is not mentioned in Article 69. They also look at whether the essence of the invention has been taken by the alleged infringer and apply the Function, Way and Result test when considering equivalence. They also adopt the principle that what is disclosed but not claimed is disclaimed. Judge Brinkman finished by posing the question as to how these concepts will be adapted in the UPC. The Q+A considered such matters as disclaimers and numerical ranges.

Heinz Goddard spoke on file wrapper estoppel and felt that the prosecution history did have a role to play. The skilled person at the date of alleged infringement should look at the patent application as published and compare it to the patent as granted and ask why changes were made. The panel could not quite agree to this proposal but were not against it either.

The final session of the day was on remedies. Mr Justice Colin Birss presented two simple ideas: the legislator makes the law and the judges apply it and second, business needs to plan and therefore certainty is required. But are these assumptions correct? Colin argued that this was not the case – by way of example the approach to the imposition of an injunction when a patent is held valid and infringed differs dramatically between the UK and the US. Further, in situations such as blocking orders and publicity orders, the Judges have had to use their discretion to extend the law to achieve justice. The very complicated issues surrounding FRAND have left a lot for the judges to work out for themselves.

Richard Vary gave a thumb-nail sketch of the small-claims track in the UK IPEC – pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of the current system and some proposals for reform. He believed that the UK rules on generally awarding the successful party its costs should reconsidered. Colin Birss stressed the need for judges to actively case-manage to be proportionate and to help the lawyers manage the expectations of their clients.

Jill Ge spoke on recent positive trends of the Beijing IP Court in awarding damages and costs to successful patentees. In the recent Watch Data case, the Court awarded 49 Million RMB (approximately US$7 Million).

Penny Gilbert closed the day by examining recent developments in Arrow-style declaratory relief – another example of Judge-made law to give parties commercial certainty. Penny sketched out the facts of the FKB v AbbVie litigation in the UK and the finding of Henry Carr J that it was appropriate to grant declarations that a dosage regime for a biosimilar product would have been anticipated or obvious at the priority date of a granted patent in the circumstances. Penny noted that whether declarations will be granted in future cases would depend on the facts and in particular the behaviour of the patentee. It seems that the particular circumstances of the FKB case were influential in the Judge’s mind.


To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.

Kluwer IP Law

The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?

Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF


  1. I refer to the part about Brexit and quote “given the marginal influence of the CJEU in the UPC regime”.
    As said on IPKat is this “knowledge, blind optimism or desperation”?
    By the way, this applies to the all statements about keeping the UK in the UPC after Brexit……

  2. UPC and the Brexit

    Declaring that the influence of the CJEU in the UPC regime will be marginal is quite daring and has more to do with wishful thinking than a robust analysis of the situation.

    That a lot of stakeholders, especially UK law firms, would like UK to stay in the UPC is understandable but does not make it more likely.

    In any case, it is a bare minimum to consider that arrangements will be put in place to ensure that participants are not prejudiced should UK leave the UPC. The contrary would be astonishing.

    Overall, it is nevertheless doubtful that that UK will stay in the UPC after Brexit. If this would be the case, it would mean that EPLA is revived in a different form. It is anything but sure and certain that the CJEU would agree on this. Ever heard of Opinion 1/09? It makes it even more strange to decide upfront about the marginal influence of the CJEU….

    I hope that this post will be published, contrary to my earlier one. In the contrary I would like to be told the reasons for non-publication. If only nice things can be said in a blog, then it is not a blog,

  3. Having had two comments blocked, I take it for acquired that any comment slightly critical of the UPC and hence not corresponding to the interests of Brystows is not to be published in this blog.

    I find this appalling. A blog is there to confront points of view, not to exclusively express a positive opinion on the UPC and/or considering a post-Brexit participation of UK in the UPC highly likely.

    Even IPKat accepts dissenting opinions.

    I am therefore not agreeing with Techrights that IPKat has been taken over by Brystows. I am even of the opinion that often Techrights deserves the cause it wants to help in being apodictic and extreme in its view.

    Should I not get a reply giving me the reasons as to why my comments were blocked, I will make the matter public.

  4. The above comment was not to made public at once. I want a detailled reply first.

  5. The author would like to point out that he was just reporting the views of those expressed by the speakers at the conference. Personally, he feels that where there is a political will, a way will be found. Though he recognises that there is a long road ahead.

  6. Daniel Thomas laments that his postings were “blocked”. I sympathise with him. But readers will be aware that blocking is sometimes appropriate. For example, if you follow the lively Patently-O blog (or the Comments threads on the UK newspaper The Guardian), you will know that some posters are offensive and so it is appropriate to “block” their offensive outpourings.

    Of course, it is a difficult judgement, what has to be “blocked”. Me, I cannot imagine Daniel Thomas ever being offensive. In my experience he is an exceedingly courteous man.

    Daniel, the blockings on Patently-O are done by a computer and often for me inexplicable. Perhaps something like that happened here, with your non-appearing postings?

  7. Please note that, unfortunately, this “blog” is primarily not an academic playground, but rather a marketing tool for Kluwer and their authors, trying to push public opinion in a way suiting their needs. Another example for such tool is the above mentioned IPkat blog after Jeremy’s departure.

    As a consequence, it should not come as too much of a surprise that comments expressing a view contradicting that of Kluwer et al are swept under the blanket. For instance, they have long abandoned publishing critical voices on the UPC as it would be required for an open debate and instead prefer presenting their exclusive narrative on how things stand and where they go. Of course, usually this has not much to do with reality which allows certain deductions to be made as regards the UPC project as a whole if it can only be kept alive based on skewed perspectives and the input of obviously biased individuals, apparently having to be protected from an open discussion.

    From an academic standpoint and the perspective of free speech, this is a rather depressing situation, but clearly it is the path Kluwer et al have chosen to follow. We will see if this comment makes it to publication or whether it will be suppressed as many others. In the latter case, there will at least be a screenshot confirming that it has been successfully submitted.

  8. To Max Drei,

    Thanks for your message. I am in favour of free speech and exchange of views, as this gives food for thoughts. Just following lead opinions can also end up in a disaster. History has given us many examples……

    I am aware of the pressure for pushing the UPC through, even with a post- Brexit participation of UK. I am however of the opinion that showing a political will is one thing, but here there are legal problems which cannot be wiped out easily just with a political agenda. Even the Gordon-Pascoe report made this clear.

    One thing has become clear to me, in this blog it is the author himself who decides what will be published. The comment of QYAmara is also revealing.

    I might think it over before saying anything again on this blog.

  9. In patent law blogs, Daniel, a comparison of the US American blogs run respectively by Dennis Crouch and Gene Quinn is instructive. Both filter reader contributions but Crouch nevertheless continues to attract way more comments than Quinn. Quinn is the owner of a law firm but Crouch is an academic.

    I, for example, continue to post to Crouch but not to Quinn, even though both blogs have been known to “block” a posting from me.

    Why do I no longer post to Quinn? Because he blocks when the opinion of the poster conflicts with his own.

    Why do I continue to post to Crouch? Because it was not he but his machine that blocked my post. That was because my post contained some word or other that activated the filter. To this day I have no idea what word that was.

    I wish the Crouch blog every success. I commend it to you.

Comments are closed.