Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Podcast

Speaker: Dr Henry Pearce, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Portsmouth and Deputy Editor for Computer Law & Security ReviewAbstract: This presentation examines the impact of Brexit on UK data protection law and, using the introduction of the now-defunct Data Protection and Digital Information Bill as a case study, critiques the ongoing reliance on personal data as the core concept underlying UK data protection law and policy. As an alternative, the presentation explores the possibility of a harm-based approach to data protection, which would shift the law’s focus away from the concept of personal data to the notion of information harms. It is contended that an approach in this vein could help to address some of the semantic and practical challenges inherent in the current personal data-based approach and could provide a more sustainable foundation for data protection law moving forward.Biography: Dr Henry Pearce is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Portsmouth. He joined the University in November 2018, having previously been lecturer in law at the University of Hertfordshire from July 2015, and tutor in law at the University of Southampton from December 2012 until June 2015. He is Deputy Editor for Computer Law & Security Review (CLSR) and provides data protection consultancy services to a number of firms based in London and the South of the UK. His research primarily focuses on data protection law and policy, and law and emerging technologies.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Kalpana Tyagi, Assistant Professor, Maastricht UniversityAbstract: Data protection, privacy and copyright may be closely aligned, yet distinctly respond to the common element, that is data – comprising of personal as well as non-personal elements. While data may not be copyright-protected, works (at least in their current form) are copyright-protected. As the Generative AI tools become more advanced, data and copyright-protected works may cease to bear any direct resemblance to pre-existing works. This can be attributed to the rise of synthetic data. While synthetic data may facilitate compliance with the 2016 EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it also heralds notable challenges for the current IPR (particularly copyright) framework. This interplay between law and technology - in light of its inter- & intra-disciplinary complexity - remains under-explored in the literature. At the CIPIL seminar, Dr. Tyagi presents her research findings on this interplay between copyright (and other IPRs) as well as data protection and privacy in the context of synthetic data and Generative AI.Biography: Kalpana Tyagi is Assistant Professor of Intellectual Property and Competition Law in the European and International Law Department, Maastricht University. She holds a multidisciplinary PhD (summa cum laude) from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich where she worked as Max Planck Fellow for Innovation and Competition until 2015. She also holds a bachelor’s degree in marketing and business strategy (I division) from College of Business Studies, New Delhi (2002), a bachelor’s degree in law (I division) from the Department of Law, New Delhi, an LLM degree in International Business Laws (I division) from Singapore and China (2009) and a specialized master in European Law and Economics (magna cum laude) from University of Hamburg, Bologna and Ghent (2012). Her main areas of interest relate to the interface of intellectual property rights and competition law, particularly in the context of digitalization.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Professor Ruth Okediji, Jeremiah Smith Jr., Professor of Law, Harvard Law School and Co-Director of the Berkman Klein CenterAbstract: The conclusion of the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in 1994 sparked a quiet revolution in the global IP system by directing unprecedented scrutiny to the maldistribution of innovation benefits among countries and communities, including Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge. The unauthorized access, use, and commercialization of biological resources raised specific questions about the malleability of acquisitive processes for patents, designs, and trademarks, and galvanized soft and hard law instruments recognizing interests in traditional knowledge and genetic resources that are in tension with dominant IP justifications. This lecture examines the recently concluded WIPO genetic resources treaty - the first formal attempt to overlay Indigenous people’s concerns on the system of global IP rights and administration. The lecture will explore prospects for structural change in IP governance based on the treaty’s design and highlight its implications for IP harmonization that differ starkly from the vision codified in the TRIPS Agreement. Those implications threaten prospects for the equitable allocation of benefits between Indigenous People’s knowledge and other stakeholders in the international IP regime.Biography: Ruth L. Okediji is the Jeremiah Smith. Jr, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Co-Director of the Berkman Klein Center. A renowned scholar in international intellectual property (IP) law and a foremost authority on the role of intellectual property in social and economic development, Professor Okediji has advised inter-governmental organizations, regional economic communities, and national governments on a range of matters related to technology, innovation policy, and development. Her widely cited scholarship on IP and development has influenced government policies in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, and South America. Her ideas have helped shape national strategies for the implementation of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). She works closely with several United Nations agencies, research centers, and international organizations on the human development effects of international IP policy, including access to knowledge, access to essential medicines and issues related to indigenous innovation systems.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminarsThis entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Dr Oliver Butler, University of NottinghamAbstract: When automated decision-making technologies (ADM) are procured and used by public authorities, important design and implementation decisions are often delegated to the professional developers they sub-contract to co-produce such technology. This can undermine accountability, democratic oversight, and the allocation of public functions determined by legislative bodies. On the other hand, in some circumstances officials might appropriately defer to the expertise of developers. This presentation considers how the concept of non-delegation in public law could be reassessed in this context to improve accountable official decision-making and the proper retention of decision-making authority where ADM is co-produced for public purposes.Biography: Oliver Butler is an Assistant Professor at Nottingham University School of Law. He read law at the University of Cambridge and received a Distinction on the BCL at the University of Oxford, where he received the Faculty Prize in Constitutional Theory. He graduated from the LLM at Harvard Law School and was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2013. He worked at the Law Commission of England and Wales as a research assistant on the Data Sharing between Public Bodies project before returning to Cambridge to undertake his PhD on the development of information law in the UK and Europe. He was Fellow at Wadham College, Oxford, jointly with a research fellowship at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights and has taught constitutional, administrative and human rights law on the BA and BCL and researched emerging digital rights.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminarsThis entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'.This session:Session 4 – Reforming Data Protection – Enforcement PerspectivesChair: Dr Jennifer Cobbe, CIPILDr Orla Lynskey, London School of EconomicsDr Johnny Ryan, Irish Council for Civil LibertiesDr Luca Tosoni, Norwegian Data Protection AuthorityProfessor Gloria Gonzalez Fuster, Vrije Universiteit BrusselFor full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024

On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'.This session:Session 3 – Reforming Data Protection – Substantive Perspectives (Keynotes) Chair: Professor David Erdos, CIPILDr Winfried Veil, Data Protection LandscapeProfessor Bert-Jaap Koops, Tilburg UniversityProfessor Nadja Purtova, Utrecht UniversityFor full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024

On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'.This session:Session 2 – UK Data Protection – The Changing Enforcement Landscape Chair: Jon Baines, MishconProfessor David Erdos, CIPIL Claudia Berg, General Counsel, Information Commissioner's OfficeJim Killock, Open Rights GroupFor full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024

On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'.This session:Session 1 – UK Data Protection – The Changing Substantive LandscapeIntroduction to Conference: Professor David Erdos, CIPILChair: Dr Jennifer Cobbe, CIPIL (04:24)Dr Michael Veale, University College London (05:12)Gavin Freeguard, Policy Associate, Connected by Data (25:54)Vivienne Artz, Data Strategy & Privacy Policy Advisor to CIPL (43:27)For full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024

On 12 March 2024 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the 2024 Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture, delivered by Professor Oren Bracha (William C. Conner Chair in Law, The University of Texas, Austin).Abstract: It is a universal truism that the subject matter of modern intellectual property law is intangible information. Yet the field is haunted by a stubborn specter of physicalism. Time and again, courts and commentators engage in reasoning that relies on physicalist and quasi-physicalist assumptions or fails to absorb the implications of the intangible object of property. This happens in a wide variety of contexts, spanning from the patentability of DNA sequences to copyright infringement by training Generative Artificial Intelligence systems. The lecture explores persisting physicalism in intellectual property law, diagnoses its sources, and argues that we should go beyond it.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Dr Alvaro Fernandez-Mora, KCLAbstract: As trade marks have evolved to perform an expressive function, courts and scholars on both sides of the Atlantic have devoted increased attention to elucidating when, and how, marks and speech interact. Three forms of interaction can be identified in European and US case law. First, in infringement litigation, a defendant can invoke speech with a view toward insulating from liability his unauthorized use of plaintiff’s mark for expressive purposes, usually for parody or commentary. Second, in trade mark registration, unsuccessful applicants can invoke speech to challenge the validity of a refusal of registration. And third, in constitutional challenges, a trade mark owner can invoke speech in seeking to strike down public measures encroaching on trade mark use. Regrettably, to date, commentators have had a tendency to focus on one form of interaction at a time, placing special emphasis on infringement cases. Their analyses and proposals for reform have privileged this form of interaction in an effort to avoid the severe repercussions that unbridled enforcement of trade mark rights could have on defendants’ speech. This has led to an impoverished understanding of the interaction between marks and speech, broadly considered. In the absence of comprehensive studies covering the diversity of instances where both sets of rights interact, conventional wisdom posits that their interaction is unidirectional, in the sense that trade mark rights chill expression. My ongoing research seeks to redress this misconception by engaging in a taxonomic analysis of the diverse scenarios in which marks and speech interact. Their joint study reveals that this interaction is best understood as a two-way street, where freedom of expression can simultaneously limit and validate trade mark rights. The proposed reconceptualization of the interaction between marks and speech can contribute significantly to the advancement of the field.Biography: Dr Alvaro Fernandez-Mora is a Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at The Dickson Poon School of Law. Alvaro joined King's College London in 2024, having previously worked as a Lecturer in Law at the University of York (2021-2024). Alvaro has earned degrees from the University of Oxford (DPhil), Harvard Law School (LLM) and Universidad Pontificia Comillas de Madrid ICADE (LLB). Before pursuing his doctoral studies, Alvaro worked as an associate lawyer at Hogan Lovells LLP’s intellectual property litigation department in Madrid. Alvaro's research interests lie at the intersection between intellectual property law and other fields –notably human rights, competition law and economics–, often from a comparative perspective. Alvaro's work has been published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law (BJIL), the International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) or the Intellectual Property Quarterly (IPQ).For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminarsThis entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Thomas St Quintin, Hogarth Chambers Abstract: Lessons from the decision of the IPEC in Shazam v Only Fools the Dining Experience, and cases referred to in that decision, addressing the findings that copyright can subsist in fictional characters (and the factors that the court relied upon in reaching that conclusion), and the defences of fair dealing for the purposes of parody and pastiche.Biography: Thomas St Quintin is a barrister at Hogarth Chambers. He specialises in intellectual property, media and entertainment. He has been instructed in cases in the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court, and has appeared as the sole or lead advocate in each of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, and in the UKIPO. His practice covers all areas of IP law, and is fairly evenly split between patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and confidential information cases (both technical and those involving privacy). He is a co-author of the Modern Law of Trade Marks, of Intellectual Property in Europe, and is a contributor to Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminarsThis entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Stuart Baran, Three New SquareAbstract: The UK Supreme Court recently gave judgment in Thaler, upholding the refusal of patent applications listing DABUS, an AI, as the inventor. After looking at what the UKSC decided and why, I will consider three broader questions that arise from the litigation: (i) why did the case take the shape it did – in particular, was it driven by questions of procedure more than substance?; (ii) what does the judgment mean for patents arising from AI inventions in future?; and (iii) how do we approach the appropriate division of labour between the courts and Parliament in approaching these questions?Biography: Stuart is Barrister at Three New Square Chambers. He was Legal 500 Junior of the Year in IP, IT and Media for 2018. In 2019 he was appointed to a three-year term as one of two Standing Counsel to HM Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. He practises in all areas of intellectual property, including: patents, SPCs, trade marks, passing off, copyright, designs and confidential information. For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Paul Wragg, University of Leeds Biography: Professor Paul Wragg is Professor of Media Law at the University of Leeds. He has written extensively on privacy and press freedom. His monograph on the compatibility of compulsory press regulation with press freedom was published by Hart in May, 2020. He is co-editor (with Professor András Koltay) of a collection of papers examining comparative privacy and defamation laws, published by Edward Elgar in July 2020 and was previously editor-in-chief of Communications Law (2016-2019). He has been at Leeds since September 2009, having previously taught at Durham University and the University of Birmingham. For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Alina Trapova, UCL Biography: Dr Alina Trapova is a Lecturer in IP Law at University College London (UCL) and a Co-Director of the Institute for Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) at UCL Laws. Prior to that, she worked at the University of Nottingham as an Assistant Professor in Law and Autonomous Systems and Bocconi University as a Research Assistant and Coordinator of the LLM in European Business and Social Law. Alina's research interests focus on copyright law and the implications of machine learning and artificial intelligence on the creative industries. Alina also has a keen interest in EU law, particularly in examining the EU's law-making powers in the field of IP law. She is also a keen blogger and acts as a Co-Managing Editor of the well-known Kluwer Copyright Blog. Abstract: AI-generated output has been a topic for discussion in the past years in academic, institutional and governmental circles. The topic involves a copyright challenge on both the input and output stage: (i) is an AI system engaging in copyright infringing activities when it processes information for the purposes of training; and (ii) are the outputs of these systems protected with copyright law as original works? While answers to these questions have remained difficult to find, a new type of AI systems have come to light – generative AI. These typically engage in the so-called prompt engineering activity whereby images and music are generated as a result of written text instructions. The copyright law puzzle becomes even more difficult to put together. This seminar will paint the picture of these issues by referring to EU, UK, and US copyright law due to ongoing litigation in these jurisdictions, as well as legislative and policy initiatives.For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Eden Sarid, Essex Law School Biography: Eden Sarid is a lecturer at Essex Law School. His research and teaching interests include intellectual property, land law, law and technology, and cultural heritage law.Abstract: This study offers a new way of thinking through the questions of what drives creativity and the role that IP plays in creative production, by empirically examining how the drag subculture governed creativity, entitlements, and information-exchange over time. First, in the 1990s when drag was a counterculture and from the mid-2010s onwards, after transforming into a lucrative mainstream industry. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi, IIUM Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaBiography: Ida Madieha bt. Abdul Ghani Azmi obtained her LLB from IIUM, LLM from University of Cambridge and Ph.D from University of London (1995). Dr. Ida has authored and presented extensively on various issues on Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw. She is currently a Professor at the Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws and the former Dean of Center for Postgraduate Studies, IIUM. She was the lead consultant for the Drafting of National Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Competition (2017-2018). She served as the Consultant to WIPO for the Drafting of IP Modules for MyIPO Malaysia (2017), the IP Policy for Kathmandu University (2016) and IP Curriculum and Syllabus in Bangladesh (2014). She has assisted WIPO on to design Database of Copyright law and Policy for ASEAN countries (2022) Model Curriculum on Copyright for Arts and Culture Schools in Developing Countries (UG and PG) (2022) and serve as a resource person for WIPO Training programmes. She currently serves as the consultant to the drafting of the Malaysian Cybersecurity Bill, which is awaiting to be tabled to the Parliament. Dr Ida served as a member of the Board of the Malaysian Intellectual Property Office (MyIPO) (2004-2008), (2018-2020). She was the former Deputy Director of the Malaysian Copyright Tribunal (2014-2016). She acts as a Domain Name Panelist with the Kuala Lumpur Arbitration Centre and Asian International Arbitration Centre. In the past, Dr Ida served as a resource person for the Intellectual Property Training Centre, ILKAB and the WTO Regional Trade Policy Program for Asia Pacific. She has served as the External Reviewer for the Multimedia University Law Faculty (2017-2018)(2019-2021) and Guest Editor, Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities.Abstract: Many countries, including Malaysia, are embarking on ambitious plans to take full advantage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies in transforming their economy. Given that the deployment of AI necessitates a supportive and comprehensive legal framework, the legal status of AI as an artificial person comes into picture. Where an AI technology is considered as mere tool for human consumption, there is no issue as to whether they should be recognised as separate legal entities accountable to their own rights and responsibilities. Yet, this is where the storm is brewing. With the ability of AI platforms to match human abilities on certain activities, in addition to the astronomical resources being poured into the development of human-like sentient AI, there is a fresh call for the legal status of AI to be revisited. This talk begins with an examination of the ontological status of personhood in contemporary discourse. The talk then moves to explore the discussion on ‘personhood’ within Muslim scholar’s discourse. Core to the issue is in what context would rights and obligations arising from AI activities and transactions be recognised under the Shariah. As Shariah is the golden thread that binds most Muslim countries, the articulation of the Shariah perspective would be beneficial to these countries aiming to build their entire economy based on AI products and services.For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Luke McDonagh, London School of EconomicsBiography: Dr Luke McDonagh the LSE Law School in 2020. He undertakes research in the areas of Intellectual Property Law and Constitutional Law. Prior to taking up his position at LSE he was a Senior Lecturer at City, University of London (2015-2020), a Lecturer at Cardiff University (2013-2015) and LSE Fellow (2011-13). Luke holds a PhD from Queen Mary, University of London (2011), an LL.M from the London School of Economics (LSE) (2006-7) and a B.C.L. degree from NUI, Galway (2002-05). He is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA).For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today’s Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish’s seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU’s Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill’s watch and founded to coincide with Bill’s retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill’s origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today’s Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish’s seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU’s Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill’s watch and founded to coincide with Bill’s retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill’s origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today’s Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish’s seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU’s Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill’s watch and founded to coincide with Bill’s retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill’s origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...