IPR Summer School 2017 – How to create value with IPR

3/2017 5.10.2017
(Case clinic, photo: Iiris Kestilä)
The fourth annual IPR Summer School took place on 4–9 June 2017 in Helsinki. The students had a week full of interesting seminars and case clinics covering different IP related topics. The overall theme of the summer school was to understand how value is created by the use of IP.

The program started on Sunday with opening words by Professor Niklas Bruun from Hanken School of Economics and IPR University Center, and a lecture by Associate Professor, Dr. Cheng Deli from Tongji University School of Law. He gave a presentation on recent trends in Chinese IP landscape, focusing on patent technology transfer in universities. He pointed out that the system needs some updating because patents are valued like published research papers in the Chinese universities. This has resulted in lots of patent applications and grants with minimal business value. After the lecture, the students learned to know each other around some wine and snacks.

(Sunday evening, photo: Iiris Kestilä)

Doctoral students Heidi Härkönen and Mikko Antikainen talking with Summer School students, photo: Iiris Kestilä

Monday

Monday morning started with a visit to Finnish Composer’s Copyright Society Teosto. Professor Nari Lee from Hanken School of Economics went through the program of the week, after which we heard some interesting presentations from Teosto staff. We learned about the options and benefits that Teosto offers to its members as well as the evolving landscape of music industry. We also heard about the recent projects of Teosto, which attempt to turn the new environment to their advantage.

(Ano Sirppiniemi, photo: Iiris Kestilä)

Ano Sirppiniemi talks about R&D at Teosto.

In the afternoon, we had a seminar on Nordic IP. Professor Thomas Riis from the University of Copenhagen talked about extended collective licenses from the point of view of the Infosoc and Digital Single Market directives. He raised a concern that extended collective licenses might be interpreted as limitations to copyright instead of mere rights management, making their permissibility unclear.

Ater Professor Riis’ lecture LL.D. Max Oker-Blom from Hanken School of Economics continued on trademark convergence between EU and Nordic countries. He pointed out the remaining tensions between the two coexisting systems, such as, ex officio examination of relative grounds and the coverage of black-and-white registered trademarks.

Professor Riis went on with a presentation on the Nordic catalogue protection. He compared it to the EU database protection and introduced some recent case law on the interpretation of the catalogue rule in the Nordic countries. Professor Niklas Bruun closed the afternoon session with a discussion of Nordic patent cooperation and its future.

In the evening, the students visited Startup Sauna in Aalto University in Otaniemi. Our host, Senior fellow and Research Director Timo Nyberg introduced us to a fun IP game. We got absorbed in the fun task of developing ideas on how IP could be used to destroy a company.

Start-up sauna and IPR Game, photo: Iiris Kestilä

Tuesday

Tuesday morning started with an inspiring trademark case clinic by Professor Katja Lindroos from the University of Eastern Finland. We examined the details of a CJEU case, C-603/14 P El Corte Ingles, to assess how likelihood of confusion should be interpreted. We also scrutinized the concept of an average consumer and its practical meaning. The students were lead to discover the principles through group discussions and tough questions.

(Case clinic by Katja Lindroos, photo: Iiris Kestilä)

In the afternoon, the students took part in the seminar on Data Mining, Industrial Internet and IPRs.  The keynote speaker was Professor Daniel Gervais from the Vanderbilt University. He discussed big data and database protection and emphasized the importance of predictable copyright exceptions. He also pointed out the different approaches to data protection in the US and Europe, and gave insights to upcoming copyright reforms.

Legal Counsel Viveca Still from the Ministry of Culture and Education further discussed the EU copyright reform and the Digital Single Market directive.  The directive attempts to harmonize rules concerning data mining and introduces some new copyright exceptions. Practical meaning of the new provisions is still unclear. Professor Nari Lee answered the two presentations with a speech on how, instead of creating more and more specific exceptions, we should determine what creates value and maybe try to rethink the whole copyright system.

Viveca Still, photo: Iiris Kestilä

Next up was Olli Pitkänen, Research Director of the IPR University Center. He introduced the Future Regulation of Industrial Internet (FRII) project. University lecturer Rosa Maria Ballardini from the University of Lapland gave a presentation on the project’s research on IP strategies related to 3D printing. She explained that 3D printing is an example of an ongoing analogical to digital transition. Traditional production is about to go through the same crisis that hit entertainment industry a while back. Ballardini emphasized the importance of taking control of the IP landscape while it is still possible.

Professor Petri Kuoppamäki from the Aalto University continued and presented some characteristics of industrial internet and its market. He discussed the problems of regulating this fast developing market and pointed out that patents on many of the core technologies might cause the problem of competing standards.

Wednesday

On Wednesday morning, the students had a copyright case clinic with Professor Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan from the University of Cambridge. The case clinic was about hyperlinking and recent EU case law related to it. We discussed the cases Svensson, GS Media and Filmspeler as well as their practical meaning and future implications. Professor Grosse Ruse-Khan put emphasis on developing rules that fit the social reality and new environment we are now in.

Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan and Nari Lee, photo: Iiris Kestilä

The afternoon consisted of the seminar Compensation for IP Infringements, arranged in cooperation with the Finnish Association of Industrial Property Rights, STY. We heard lots of interesting presentations and discussions on the complex world of IP strategies. The first presentation was given by Niklas Östman, partner of Roschier Attorneys Ltd, on the economics, strategy and dynamics of IP licensing. He shared some valuable tips on what should be taken into account when trying to monetize IP.

Photo: Iiris Kestilä

Senior Vice President, PhD Pekka Sääskilahti of Compass Lexecon continued with some insights into economics of IP evaluation. He showed us how value of IP can be estimated based on comparables or value added. He presented statistical methods that can be used to calculate added value. This mathematical approach to IP pricing was very interesting and useful.

Next we had Professor Martin Senftleben from Vrije University of Amsterdam discuss compensations for IP infringements from a European perspective. He went through the common basic principle – compensation for actual loss – and introduced us to different ways of calculating the loss as well as the national approaches to them.

Martin Senftleben, photo: Iiris Kestilä

The next presentation was about recent developments in IP remedies and compensation in the US. It was given by Professor Thomas F. Cotter from the University of Minnesota. He introduced the US doctrines behind estimating patent infringement compensations and the prerequisites for enhanced damages. He also brought to our attention recent case law and its possible implications.

Thomas F. Cotter, photo: Iiris Kestilä

The seminar was closed with an interesting panel that discussed the role of infringement and compensations from the viewpoint of different industries. The panel was hosted by Johanna Flythström, President of STY. The participants were Head of European Litigation Clemens Heusch from Nokia, Head of Legal Affairs Mikko Kemppainen from Orion and Legal Counsel IPR Robert Hagelstam from Rovio.

Panel discussion about the role of infringement and compensations, photo: Iiris Kestilä

It was very educating to learn that all of these industries – technology licensing, pharmaceutical and gaming – use their IP in very different ways. For e.g. Nokia, it is central to have many patents to license and make money out of licensing. For a pharmaceutical company, the most important thing about patents is exclusivity. Patents are used to protect investments and keep competition out of the market. For Rovio, IP is used for brand protection and to keep counterfeit goods out of the market.

Thursday

On Thursday, the student program included a day trip to Turku. There we had a seminar on Fundamental Rights and IP, hosted by Professor Tuomas Mylly from the University of Turku. The Turku seminar is covered in a separate article.

Friday

Friday was the last day of the summer school. The students had a patent case clinic with Professor Nari Lee. The session was about recent US case law on diagnostic and genetic patents. We discussed the court cases Ariosa and Mayo as well as the recent PTAB decision on CRISPR patents. Over the course of the session, we got familiar with the US patent system and the assessment of patent eligibility. Professor Lee challenged us to think about the possible consequences of having lots of diagnostic and research tools patented and raised a question about the fair distribution of value created by new health technologies and their patents.

Professor Lee closed the Summer School with summing up of the theme of the week. We learned a lot about different IPRs and the many sectors that are affected by them. Lots of changes in our environment and technology have taken place, and there are new stakeholders in the game. During the Summer School, we learned about these changes but also about the ways of creating new value by the use of IP in these new kind of setups. The Summer School was a very intense and inspiring experience, which surely gave the students fresh ways to look at the world and ideas on what to do with their future careers.

Johanna Rahnasto
Iiris Kestilä

Authors worked as trainees at IPR University Center in summer 2017.

Aiheet: Muut, Tekijänoikeus
Share: