Wipo LLM Syllabus 2011

UNIVERSITY OF
TURIN
FACULTY OF LAW
INTERNATIONAL
LABOUR
ORGANIZATION
WIPO WORLDWIDE
ACADEMY
LL.M. (MASTER OF LAWS) IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
SYLLABUS
This document indicates the bibliography participants are supposed to read in advance of each
class.
The syllabus is organized around weekly modules and daily sessions which correspond to the
classes as indicated in the curriculum.
For each class there are (i) readings reproduced in xerocopy in the large hard folder
provided on the first day of the residential phase; available in the WIPO Handbook and in the
book by F.M. Abbott-Th. Cottier-F. Gurry, International Intellectual Property in an Integrated
World Economy, Aspen-Wolters Kluwer, 2007, also provided on the same occasion; and (ii)
readings uploaded on the programs digital platform (in the header Course Resources,
Documents, Current edition). As indicated, you must have read all the relevant readings (i) and
have looked at the materials in (ii) before each class. On the digital platform you will also find
(iii) additional readings which are relevant for the class, but you may decide to set aside to read
them at some other date.
At the end of the residential phase, each student will receive a CD-Rom containing all the
readings, (ii) and (iii), uploaded on the website. Therefore, do print only what you really need
and at the time you need it. The rest you will take along with you in digital format and you may
print it wherever you want whenever you want.
WEEK I: GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
1.
Registration and administrative matters.

Opening Ceremony.
Introduction.
Explanation of the infrastructure of ILO International training center.
2.
Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and its Education and Training
Programs.
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, The teaching of Intellectual Property Law, 421-432
Further readings, available on the website, heading Course resources, folder documents
current edition, subfolder WIPO:
WIPO: An Overview, 2-41 (available at http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/general/1007/wipo_
pub_1007.pdf);
What is WIPO? (available at http://www.wipo.int);
WIPO Administered Treaties (available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en);
The Activities of the WIPO Worldwide Academy (available at http://www.wipo.int/academy/en).
4.
Intellectual Property & Development.

W.R. CORNISH, D. LLEWELYN, T. APLIN , Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and
Allied Rights, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010, 12-38.
current edition, subfolder International IP Law:
J.H. REICHMAN, Taking the Medicine with Angst. An Economists View of the TRIPs Agreement, in 4 J. of
Intl Econ. Law 2001, 795 ff.;
P. DRAHOS, Developing Countries and International intellectual Property Standard-Setting, in JWIP
2002, 766 ff.
Visit to the University Library.

5.
Registration at Torino University.
WEEK II: GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (CONTD)
1.
Sources and Main Principles of International Intellectual Property Law: The Paris
Convention (Principle of National Treatment, Right of Priority, Article 6ter).
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 4-12;
The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 241-262.
Sources and Main Principles of International Intellectual Property Law: The TRIPS
Agreement (Main Provisions Concerning IPRs, Most Favored Nation Principle).
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights and WIPO-WTO Cooperation, 345-360.
current edition, subfolder International IP Law:
A. KUR, The TRIPs Agreement Ten Years Later A Conference Commemorating the 10 th Anniversary of
the TRIPs Agreement, in 36 IIC 2005, 558-562;
What is the WTO? (available at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm);
The EU at a glance (available at http://europa.eu/abc/index_en.htm);
APEC at a glance (available at http://www.apec.org/apec/about_apec.html);
Overview of the Canada and the North American Free Trade Agreement
http://www.international.gc.ca/commerce/index.aspx);
2.
(available at
Intellectual Property in the Global Economy. The Theory of Price under Competition,
Oligopoly and Monopoly.
W.R. CORNISH, D. LLEWELYN, T. APLIN, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and
Allied Rights, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010 , 38-44;
R. COOTER, T. ULEN, Law and Economics, Addison, Wesley, 2000, 25-34; 37-42; 117-129;
L.A. FRANZONI, The Contract Theory of Patents in Perspective in Internationalisierung des Rechts
und seine konomische Analyse, Springer, 2008, 103 ff.
Further reading, available on the website, heading Course resources, folder documents
current edition, subfolder Law and Economics of IP:
3.
IP, Monopoly & Competition. Allocative Efficiency, Pareto-Optimality and the Pricing
Mechanism.
Economic Analysis of Law and IPRs.
4.
Private International Law Issues in Intellectual Property.

B. UBERTAZZI, [ . . . ], Marquette Int. Prop. L. Rev. 2011, [ . . . ]
current edition, subfolder Private International IP Law:
Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, September 3, 2010, Gallo Africa v Sting Music, (40/10) [2010]
ZASCA 96, case Gallo Africa;
U.K. High Court of Justice Court of Appeal, December 16, 2009, Lucasfilm Ltd v. Ainsworth, [2009]
EWCA Civ 1328, case Lucasfilm;
United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, February 1, 2007, Voda v. Cordis Corp. (476 F.3d
887), case Voda;
B. UBERTAZZI, Intellectual Property and State Immunity from Jurisdiction in the New York Convention
of 2004, in Yearbook of Private International Law 2009, 599-625 (forthcoming) (available in the hard
folder).
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 17, 2008 on the
Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I), 2008 O. J. (L 177/6) (available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:177:0006:0016:EN:PDF);
Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 11, 2007 on the
Law Applicable to Non-contractual Obligations (Rome II), 2007 O. J. (L199/40) (available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:199:0040:0049:EN:PDF);
A. KUR, Principles governing jurisdiction, choice of law and judgments in transnational disputes: a
European perspective, in CRi 2003, 65-72;
B. UBERTAZZI, The EC Council regulation on Evidence and the Description of Goods
Infringing IP Rights, in EuLF 2008, 80-90
N. BOSCHIERO, Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights. Comment on Article 8 of the Rome II

Regulation, in Yearbook Private International Law, 2007, 87 ff.;
. LUCAS, Private international law aspects of the protection of works and of the subject matter of
related rights transmitted over digital networks, 2000 (available at www.wipo.int);
A. LUCAS , Applicable Law in Copyright Infringement Cases in the Digital Environment (available at
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/29336/11338009191lucas_en.pdf/lucas_en.pdf);
J. ZITTRAIN, Be Careful What You Ask For: Reconciling a Global Internet and Local Law, in Harvard
Law School Public Law Research Paper No 60 (available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pap ers.cfm?
abstract_id=395300).
WEEK III: PATENTS
1.
History and Economics of Patent Law.

C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 1-4 (What is a patent?);
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 26-33 (Economics of Patent
Law);
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 33-48 (Process of Obtaining
Patent Protection);
current edition, subfolder Patents:
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 4-26 (History of Patent Law).
2.
Disclosing and Claiming the Invention.

C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 49-67 (Enablement and Claim
Scope);
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 76-79 (Complying with the
Enablement Requirement).
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Drafting and Filing a Patent Application, 22-27;
35 United Stated Code 101 (originally available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.html);
U.S. Supreme Court, June 16, 1980, Diamond v. Chakrabarty (447 U.S. 303), case Chakrabarty;
45 House of Lords, 31 October 31, 1996, Biogen Inc. v. Medeva PLC, in RPC 1997, 1 ff. (Lord
Hoffmann), case Biogen;
Technical Board of Appeal, July 1, 1998, In re International Business Machines Corporation, in 31, IIC,
2000, 189 ff.;
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, July 23, 1998, State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature
Financial Services (149 F. 3d 1368), case State Street Bank;
House of Lords, 1982, Catnic Components Ltd. V. Hill & Smith Ltd., (1982) R.P.D. & T.M. 183) (H.L.),
case Catnic (available at http://www.jurisdiction.com/catnic.htm#decision);
U.S. Supreme Court, May 28, 2002, Festo Corp v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd. (535
U.S. 722, case Festo;
Germany, Federal Supreme Court, May 24, 2004, case Electronic Payment System, facts, findings and
comments in 36 IIC 2/2005, 242-249.
3.
Patentable Subject Matter.

C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 109-122 (Patenting Life);
U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2010, Bilski v. Kappos (___ S.Ct. ___ , 2010 WL 2555192), case
Bilski (Patenting Software and Business Methods).
Further readings:
Allied Rights, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010, 229-248;
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, The Patent Law Treaty (PLT), 301-305.
4.
Patentability Requirements: Novelty and Statutory Bars (Prejudicial Behavior).

EPC Article 54 (1) and (2) (as amended 29 Nov. 2000 and entered into force on 13 Dec. 2007);
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 187-204; 225-37 (Noveltys
Doctrine and Framework);
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 259-271; 279-282; 286-293;
307-312; 317-319 (Statutory Bars);
EPC Article 55 (as amended 29 Nov. 2000 and entered into force on 13 Dec. 2007).
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 237-245 (Priority of Invention v.
First to File);
5.
Case Study in private international law.
6.
Patentability Requirements: Inventive Step or Non-obviousness.

C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 321-322; 327-333 (The
Foundational Test);
EPC Article 56 and Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 (as amended 29 Nov. 2000 and
entered into force on 13 Dec. 2007);
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 342-364 (The Test in Action).
7.
Enforcing Patent Rights.

C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 387-395; 401-402 (Interpreting
Patent Claims)
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 431-443; 458-472; 505-521
(Non-Literal Infringement);
EPC Article 69 and Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 (as amended 29 Nov. 2000 and
entered into force on 13 Dec. 2007).
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 416-430 (Interpreting Patent
Claims)
W.R. CORNISH, D. LLEWELYN, T. APLIN, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PATENTS, COPYRIGHT, TRADE
MARKS AND ALLIED RIGHTS, SWEET & MAXWELL, 2010, 259-284;
547 US Supreme Court, (15 May 15, 2006), EBay Inc. et Al. v. Merchexchange (547 U.S. 388), case
EBay (available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-130.pdf)
J.R. ALLISON, M.A. LEMLEY, The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, in 59 Stanford
Law Review 2007, 955-984
Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights: Lessons from Memtec - Memtec (Australia), (available at
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/case_studies/memtec.htm)
S.J.R. BOSTYN, The Unbearable Heaviness of Harmonisation: SPLT and CP, in M. Ricolfi ed., I brevetti
per Invenzione fra Diritto Europeo e Diritto Nazionale, Giuffr, Milano, 2004, 105-153
F.M. ABBOTT, The TRIPs Agreement, Access to Medicines, and the WTO Doha Ministerial Conference,
in JWIP, 2002, 15 ff.
8.
Defences to Patent Infringement.

7
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 591-605; 614-625; 629-632 (The
Use of Contract and its Limitations).
C.A. NARD, The Law of Patents, Aspen Publishing, New York, 2008, 666-667; 672-675; 684-687; 712718 (Antitrust)
9.
Important and Current Global/European Issues.

H. ULLRICH, National, European and Community Patent Protection: Time for Reconsideration, EUI
Working Paper LAW No. 2006/41 (Patent Enforcement in Europe).
F. M. ABBOTT, J.H. REICHMAN , The Dohas Round Public Health Legacy: Strategies for the Production
and Diffusion of Patented Medicines Under the Amended Trips Provisions, in 10 J. of Intl Econ. Law
2007, 921-987 (TRIPS and Access to Medicines).
10.
Trade Secrets.
C.A. Nard, Trade Secrets, pp. 1-26.
current edition, subfolder Trade Secret:
International Trade in Technology - Licensing of Know-How and Trade Secrets;
What an Employee Needs to Know About Trade Secrets;
Disclosing Confidential Information;
Trade Secrets are Gold Nuggets: Protect Them;
(The last four readings are originally available at www.wipo.int, heading Program Activities, SMEs,
IP Rights, Trade Secrets and Articles)
12.
The options between patenting and trade secret protection: a case study.
WEEK IV: PATENTS (CONTD)
1.
The Case of Biotechnological patents.

C. CORREA, Patenting Human DNA: What Flexibilities Does the TRIPS Agreement Allow?, in 10 The
J. of World Int. Prop. 2007, 419437.
A.S. KESSELHEIM AND M.M. MELLO, Gene Patenting Is the Pendulum Swinging Back?, in 362
The New England Journal Of Medicine, 2010, 1855-1858.
C. CORREA, Trends in Intellectual Property Rights Relating to Genetic Resources, Commission on
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome: Background Study Paper No. 49, Rome,
October 2009, available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/017/k533e.pdf.
Brief for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines As Amicus Curiae in Support of PlaintiffsAppellees, The Association for Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent And Trademark
Office And Myriad Genetics, Inc. et al., available at http://patentdocs.typepad.com/files/univer
sitites-allied-for-eesential-medicines-amicus-brief.pdf.
European Court of Justice, Case C428/08, Monsanto Technology LLC v Cefetra BV, July 9, 2010,
available at www.curia.eu.
current edition, subfolder Patents, subfolder Biotechnologies and Plant Varieties
Protection:
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Biotechnology, 442-448;
S.J.R. BOSTYN, Patenting Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Peril: the Decision of the Enlarged Board of
Appeal G2/06, in 10 BSLR 2007/2008, Issue 1, 13 ff.
S.J.R. BOSTYN, The Prodigal Son: The Relationship Between Patent Law and Health Care, in 11
Medical L. R. 2003, 67-120;
Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 6, 1998 on the Legal
Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, 1998 O.J. (L 213) (available at
http://eurlex.europa.eu/RECH_menu.do);
The Importance of Intellectual Property Rights in the International Spread of Private Sector Agricultural
Biotechnology (available at http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/studies/pdf/study_k_pray.pdf);
Role of IPR in Biotechnology Transfer - Corporate Views (available at http://www.wipo.int/aboutip/en/studies/pdf/ssa_lesser_biotech.pdf);
Patents at the Core: the Biotech Business (available at http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/academic_
patenting.htm).
2.
Intellectual property and the International Legal Regime of Access to Genetic Resources:
Article 27 of TRIPs The Convention on Biological Diversity
C. OH, Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement: Review Options for the South, TWN, available at
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/oh1-cn.htm.
M. IGLESIAS, Plant Genetic Resources As Commons: The Model of FAOs International Treaty,
available at http://www.fundp.ac.be/droit/crid/propriete/M.IGLESIAS_FAO%20international%20
treaty.
Convention on Biological Diversity, available at http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/.
Protection:
G. TANSEY AND T. RAJOTTE, The Future Control of Food - A Guide to International Negotiations and
Rules on Intellectual Property, Biodiversity and Food Security, Earthscan, London, 2008.
C. CORREA, Consideration on the Standard Material Transfer Agreement Under the FAO Treaty on
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and agriculture, in J. of World Intell. Prop. 2006, 137 ff;
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, The International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties
of Plants, 331-345;
E. BONADIO, Crop Breeding and Intellectual Property in the Global Village, in EIPR 2007, 167171;
S.J.R. BOSTYN, Do You Want Biological or Essentially Biological Vegetables?, in BSLR, Vol. 9, Issue 4,
2006/2007, 146 ff.
C. CHIAROLLA, Commodifying Agricultural Biodiversity and Development related Issues, in J. of World
Intell. Prop. 2006, 25 ff.
P. CULLET, Plant Variety Protection in Africa: Towards Compliance with the TRIPS Agreement, in
Journal of African Law 2001, 97 ff.
E. OPOKU AWUKU, Biotechnology, Intellectual Property Rights and the Rights of Farmers in Developing
Countries, in J. of World Intell. Prop. 2005, 75-82
3.
IPR Enforcement Dispute Settlement Under TRIPs

C. CORREA, The Global Debate on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and Developing
Countries, ICTSD Programme on Intellectual Property Rights and Sustainable Development,
Geneva, Issue No. 22, 2009, available at http://ictsd.org/ downloads/2009/03/fink-correa-web.pdf.
M.O. GAD, TRIPS Dispute Settlement and Developing Country Interests, in C. CORREA AND A.
YUSUF, Intellectual Property and International Trade. The TRIPS Agreement, Kluwer Law
International, London, second edition, 2008.
4.
University inventions/SPLT.
S. Boettiger and A.B. Bennett, Bayh-Dole: if we knew then what we know now, Nature
Biotechnology 24, 320 - 323 (2006), available at http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n3/pdf/
nbt0306-320.pdf.
Anthony D. So, B. N. Sampat, A.K. Rai, R. Cook-Deegan, J.H. Reichman, R. Weissman, A.
Kapczynski, Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US Experience, PLoS
Biol 6(10), 2008, available at http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.006
0262.
J. Reichman, Patent Law Harmonization and the Draft SPLT, paper presented to the World
Intellectual Property Organizations (WIPO) Open Forum on the Draft Substantive Patent Law
Treaty (SPLT),International Conference Center (ICC), Geneva, Switzerland, 1-3 March 2006,
available at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/2006/scp_of_ge_06/presentations/scp_of_ge_06_reich
man.pdf.
Protection:
Academic Patenting: How Universities and Public Research Organizations are Using their Intellectual
Property to Boost Research and Spur Innovative Start-ups, (available at http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/
documents/academic_patenting.htm)
5.
Patent Searching.
WEEK V: VISIT AT THE WIPO HEADQUARTERS IN GENEVA
1.
New Developments in the WIPO.
2.
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PTC).
3.
Madrid System, Registration of Trademarks.
4.
Intellectual Property and Contemporary Issues: the WTO Perspective.

Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health: Issues and Challenges.
5.
Plant Variety Protection and the UPOV System and

Agriculture and its Relationship with UPOV.
6.
WIPO Library.
7.
Arbitration and Mediation, Alternative Dispute Settlement Resolutions.
8.
Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions (Folklore) and Recent

Developments.
8.
Annual Conference.
9.
Senior Day.
10.
Meeting and appointments with WIPO Officials.

Closing Remarks.
Resources for Food and
WEEK VI: PATENTS (CONTD)
1.
Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Dilemmas in the Protection of the Last Generation
Innovation.
From Property Rules to Liability Rules in IP: the Compensatory Liability Paradigm.
Using Liability Rules to Stimulate Innovation in Developing Countries. Applications to
Traditional Knowledge.
J.H. REICHMAN, Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu Repackaging Rights in Subpatentable Innovation,
53 Vand. L. Rev. 2000, 1743 ff.;
J.H. REICHMAN, Saving the Patent Law from Itself: Informal Remarks Concerning the Systemic
Problems Afflicting Developed Intellectual Property Regimes, in F. S. Kieff (ed.), Perspectives on
Properties of Human Genome Project, Elsevir Academic Press, San Diego, 2003, 289-303;
J. H. REICHMAN AND T. LEWIS, Using Liability Rules to Stimulate Local Innovation in Developing
Countries: Application to Traditional Knowledge, in K.E. MASKUS and J.H. REICHMAN (eds.),
International Public Goods and Transfer Of Technology Under A Globalized Intellectual Property
Regime, 2005, 337- 366.
2.
Introduction to Tutorial on Antitrust and Unfair Competition.
3.
Toward a Contractually Reconstructed Commons?

(i) Small Molecule Libraries
(ii) Microbial Commons 1 Pooling Genetic Resources
(iii) Microbial Commons 2 Open Knowledge Environments
J.H. REICHMAN, A.K. RAI, P.F. UHLIR, and C. CROSSMAN, Pathways Across the Valley of Death:
Novel Intellectual Property Strategies for Accelerated Drug Discovery, in 7 Yale J. Health L. Pol'y &
Ethics 2008, 53 ff., reprinted in, Gene Patents and Collaborative Licensing Models: Patent Pools,
Clearinghouses, Open Source Models and Liability Regimes 247-287 (Geertrui Van Overwalle ed.,
2009);
current edition, subfolder Patent:
J.H. REICHMAN and P.F. UHLIR, A Contractually Reconstructed Research Commons for Scientific Data
in a Highly Protectionist Intellectual Property, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 2003, 315 ff.
4.
Intellectual Property and Climate Change.
5.
Patent Drafting.
6.
The Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions.

D. CLOSA, P. CORCORAN, J. MACHEK, C. NEPPEL , EPO Examination Practice In Relation To
Computer Implemented Inventions, In Particular, Computer-Implemented Business Methods, in
epiinformation 2007, 2, 65-69;
Decision T 258/03 of the Technical Board of Appeal (April 21, 2004);
Decision T 172/03 of the Technical Board of Appeal (November 27, 2003);
Decision T 641/00 of the Technical Board of Appeal (September 26, 2002);
Decision T 1173/97 of the Technical Board of Appeal (July 1, 1998);

(All the decision are available at: www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/search.html)
WEEK VII: COMPETITION AND ANTITRUST
1.
Introduction to Antitrust.
The Goals of Antitrust: Allocative Efficiency and Fairness. U.S., EU and International
Legislation).
P. DEMAERT, I. GOVAERE, Parallel Imports, Free Movement and Competition Rule : The European
Experience and Perspective, in T. COTTIER and P. MAVROIDIS (Eds.), Intellectual Property, Trade,
Competition and Sustainable Development, Vol. III of the World Trade Forum Series, The University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2003, 147 ff.
current edition, subfolder Antitrust and Competition:
Articles 101 and 102, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
2.
The Prohibition of Restrictive Practice.

The Prohibition of Monopolization and of Abuse of a Dominant Position.
European Court of Justice, April 29, 2004, in case C-418/01, IMS Health GmbH & c. NDC Health
GmbH & Co. KG, case IMS; EU Commission press release May 13 2009, Antitrust:
Commission imposes fine of 1.06 bn on Intel for abuse of dominant position; orders Intel to cease
illegal practices (available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/745);
European Court of First Instance, September 17, 2007, case T-201/04, Microsoft v. EU Commission,
case Microsoft (available at www.curia.europa.eu).
ROBERT PITOFSKY, The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under United States Antitrust Law (available at
www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycomments/ pitofskyrobert.pdf).Further
readings,
available on the website, heading Course resources, folder documents current edition,
subfolder Antitrust and Competition:
C. HEATH, Wrongful Patent Enforcement Threat and Post-Infringement Invalidity in Comparative
Perspective, in 39 IIC 2008, 307 ff.;
Note, Antitrust and the Information Age: Sec. 2 Monopolization Analyses in the New Economy , in 114
Harv. L. Rev. 2001, 1623 ff.;
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, August 31, 2004, The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink
Tech, Inc. (381 F.3d 1178 ), case Chamberlain, in 36 IIC 2005, 263-270.
3.
The Antitrust Scrutiny of Refusal to Deal in Intellectual Property and Price

Discrimination in Licensing.
V. KORAH The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition in Developed
Countries, in 2 SCRIPT 2005, 429 ff.;
French Supreme Court, Theory of Essential Facilities and Access to computer programs NMPP v.
MLP (findings), in 37 IIC 2006, 239 ff.;
Commission Regulation No. 772/2004 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories
of technology transfer agreements.
4.
Tutorial: antitrust and unfair competition.
WEEK VIII: COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
1.
(FIRST EXAM)
2.
The World of Copyright: an Overview.

History, Philosophy, and Significance of Copyright Law Subject Matter of Protection.
Requirements for Protection.
Term of Copyright.
Recent Developments.
Allied Rights, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010,, 399-435;
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook , 40-46;
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Copyright and Development, 196-197;
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WTC), 269-276;
current edition, subfolder Copyright:
N. HELBERGER, N. DUFT, S. VAN GOMPEL, B. HUGENHOLZ, Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of
Protection of Sound Recordings is a Bad Idea, in EIPR 2008, 174 ff. (available in the hard folder)
L. ZEMER, On the value of copyright theory, in IPQ 2006, 55 ff.;
English High Court (Chancery Division), April 7, 2006, Baigent v Random House Group Ltd, case DA
VINCI CODE, available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/719.html);
English Court of Appeal, March 28, 2007, Baigent v Random House Group Ltd, case DA VINCI
CODE (available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/247.html).
3.
International Protection of Copyright and Related Rights.

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT).
The Rome Convention.
The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).
International Bureau of WIPO, WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) (1996)
4.
Subject matter and protection requirements.

European Court of Justice, July 16, 2009, in case C-5/08, Infopaq International A/S Danske
Dagblades Forening, case INFOPAQ (available at www.curia.europa.eu);
A. CHRISTIE, A Proposal for Simplifying United Kingdom Copyright Law, in 23 EIPR 2001, 26-43.
Authorship and ownership: Employee works and Commissioned Works
Copyright in Commissioned Works and Journalists Copyright.

Assignment and Licensing of Copyright.
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Ownership of Copyright, 49
K. PURI, Copyright and Employment, International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law,
in 26 ICC, 1996, 53 ff.
5.
Rights Comprised in Copyright and Related Rights (Economic Rights, Moral Rights).
Moral Rights in the United States, as excerpted in F.M. ABBOTT, T. COTTIER, F. GURRY, The
International Intellectual Property System: Commentary and Materials, 1083-1101;
French Cour de Cassation, 1992, , Angelica Huston v. Turner Entertainment Co. (ECC 334), as excerpted
in F.M. ABBOTT, T. COTTIER, F. GURRY, The International Intellectual Property System: Commentary
and Materials, 1083-1087;
W. CORNISH, Moral Rights Under the 1988 Act, 12 EIPR 1989, 449 ff..
6.
Assignment and Licensing of Copyright.

A. RAHMATIAN, Non-assignability of Authors Rights in Austria and Germany and its Relation to the
Concept of Creativity in Civil Law Jurisdictions Generally: A Comparison with UK Copyright Law, in
Ent. L. Rev. 2000, 95-103.
N. ELKIN KOREN, What Contracts Cant Do: The Limits of Private Ordering in Facilitating a Creative
Commons, in 74 Fordham Law Review 2005, 375-422.
7.
The European Perspective in Copyright.

Rental Right and Lending Right.
Satellite Broadcasting and Cable Retransmissions.
Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 12, 2006 on
Rental Right and Lending Right and on Certain Rights Related to Copyright in the Field of
Intellectual Property, 2006 O.J. (L 376)
Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 12, 2006 on the
Term of Protection of Copyright and Certain Related Rights, 2006 O.J. (L 372)
Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of September 27, 2001 on the
Resale Right for the Benefit of the Author of an Original Work of Art, 2001 O.J. (L 272)
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 22, 2001 on the
Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society,
2001 O.J. (L 167)
Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of March 11, 1996 on the Legal
Protection of Databases, 1996 O.J. (L 77)
Council Directive 93/83/EEC of September 27, 1993 on the Coordination of Certain Rules
Concerning Copyright and Rights Related to Copyright Applicable to Satellite Broadcasting and
Cable Retransmission, 1993 O.J. (L 248)
Directive 2009/24/EC of April 23, 2009 on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs (codified
version), 2009 O.J. (L 11)
(The 7 Directives are all available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/RECH_menu.do)
Harmonization of Term of Protection.

Harmonization in the Information Society.
Allied Rights, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010, 468-476, 885-906.
WEEK IX: COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS (CONTD)
1.
Copyright And Sui Generis Protection For Functional Innovation.

Software And Databases: Legal Protection Of Computer Programs; Legal Protection Of
Databases.
Legal Protection of Computer Programs
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Computer Programs, 425-442;
Allied Rights, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010, 843-872, 872-885;
E. DERCLAYE, Software Copyright Protection: Can Europe Learn from American Case Law? Parts 1
& 2, in 7 EIPR 2000, 7-16; 56-68;
E. DERCLAYE, Database Sui Generis Right: What Is a Substantial Investment? A Tentative Definition,
in 36 IIC 2005, 2-30;
U.S. Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, June 22, 1992, Computer Associates v Altai (982 F. 2d
693), case Altai.
E. DERCLAYE, The ECJ interprets the database sui generis right for the first time, in 30 ELR 2005, 420430 (available in the hard folder);
T. APLIN, The EU Database Right: Recent Developments, in IPQ 2005, 52-68;
Dutch, Court of Appeals, November 27, 2002, Wegener c. s. Apeldoorn/Houten/Nijmegen v. Hunter
Select BV, Groningen, case Wegener, in 35 IIC 2004, 355 ff.;
European Court of Justice, November 11, 2004, case C-203/02 , The British Horseracing Board Ltd v.
William
Hill
Organisation
Ltd,
case
BRITISH
HORSERACING
(available
at
www.curia.europa.eu);Copyright Protection: Reaping the Benefits of Literary or Artistic Creativity
(available at http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/wipo_magazine/01_2003.pdf);
J.A. BOVENBERG., Blood, Sweat and Grants. Honest Jim and the European Database-Right (available at
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/journals/gsp/docs/volume1number2/jbgspvol1no22005.pdf);
J.M. DALLE, P.A. DAVID, R.A. GHOSH, W.E. STEINMUELLER, Advancing Economic Research on the Free
and Open Source Software Mode of Production (available at http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/
davidetal.pdf);
Australian High court, Definition of Technical Protection Measure, Sony v. Stevens, in IIC 2/2006, 229 ff.
2.
Infringement of Copyright and Related Rights.

Remedies.
Limitations and Exceptions Fair Use.
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Limitations on Copyright Protection, 50;
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Piracy and Infringement, 51-52;
W. J. GORDON, Fair Use As Market Failure: A Structural And Economic Analysis of the Betamax
Case And Its Predecessors, 82 Columbia L. Rev. 1982, 1600.
J.C. GINSBURG, S. RICKETSON, Inducers and Authorisers: A Comparison of the US Supreme Courts
Grokster Decision and the Australian Federal Courts KaZaa Ruling, in Columbia Public Law and Legal
Theory Working Papers 2006, n 0698;
C. HEATH, Wrongful Patent Enforcement Threat and Post-Infringement Invalidity in Comparative
Perspective, in 39 IIC 2008, 307 ff., above in WEEK VI.4;
B. HUGENHOLTZ, Why the Copyright Directive is Unimportant and Possibly Invalid in EIPR 2000, 499;
N. BRAUN, The Interface between the Protection of Technological Measures and the Exercise of
Exceptions to Copyright and Related Rights: Comparing the Situation in the United States and in the
European Community in EIPR 2003, 496;
U.S. Supreme Court, June 27, 2005, Metro Goldwin Mayer v. Grokster (125 S.Ct. 2764), case
Grokster;
U.S. Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit, August 19, 2004, Metro Goldwin Mayer v. Grokster(380 F.3d
1154), in Computer und Recht International 2004, 183-186;
Decision and the Australian Federal Courts KaZaa Ruling, in Columbia Public Law and Legal Theory
Working Papers 2006, n 0698;
European Court of Justice, case C-245/00, SENA v NOS, 6 February 2003, case SENA (available on
www.curia.europa.eu);
European Court of Justice, November 11, 2004, case C-203/02 , The British Horseracing Board Ltd v.
William Hill Organisation Ltd, case BRITISH HORSERACING (available at www.curia.europa.eu);
What to do if You're Accused of Copyright Infringement (available at http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/
documents/copyright_infringement.htm).
T. F. COTTER, Fair Use And Copyright Overenforcement, 93 Iowa L. Rev. 2008, 1271 ff.
4.
Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment.

Technological Measures and Anti-circumvention Provisions (TPMs)
TPMs, Limitations and Exceptions, and Fair Use
5.
Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment (contd).

Copyright, Digitization, and Mass-Production.
Free Culture, Open Access, Remix, and User Generated Content.
Digital Rights and User Rights.
Access and Public Domain.
Y. BENKLER, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom,
Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2007, 29-34, 99-106, 116-122 available at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/ Main_Page;
L. LESSIG, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, Bloomsbury, London,
2008, 36-40, 76-83, 117-119, 155-162, available at http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/remix.htm;
J. BOYLE, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind, Yale University Press, New
Haven and London, 2009, 42-53, 60-65, 83-85, 118-121, 290-294, available at
www.thepublicdomain.org;
Y. BENKLER, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, Yale
University Press, New Haven and London, 2007, 35-63, 212-215, 271-272, 383-385, available at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/ Main_Page;
L. LESSIG, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, Bloomsbury, London, 2008,
162-172, 253-287, 289-294, available at http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/remix.htm;
J. BOYLE, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind, Yale University Press, New Haven
and London, 2009, 70-82, 85-117, 236-248, available at www.thepublicdomain.org;
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 22, 2001 on the
harmonization of certain aspects of the Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, 2001
O.J. (L 167) (available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/RECH_menu.do);
P. AKESTER, F. LIMA, The Economic Dimension of the Digital Challenge: A Copyright Perspective, IPQ
2005, 69-81;
5.
Enforcing Copyrights against File-Sharers.

Copyright Liability of On-Line Intermediaries and Applications Providers.
M. MANNER, T. SINIKETO, U. POLLAND, The Pirate Bay ruling - when the fun and games end, in
Entertainment Law Review 2009, 20(6), pp. 197-205;
W. WEI, ISP indirect copyright liability: conflicts of rights on the Internet, in Computer and
Telecommunications Law Review 2009, 15(8), pp. 181-185;
J. SWINSON, L. PEARSON, Roadshow Films Ltd. v iiNet Ltd. (No. 3): Australia - intellectual property copyright (Case Comment), in Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 2010, 16(4), pp. 75-77;
A. BRIDY, ACTA and the Specter of Graduated Response, SSRN Working Paper Series, June 1, 2001;
R. B. DANAY, Copyright Vs. Free Expression: The Case of Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing of Music in the
United Kingdom, 8 Yale J. L. Tech. 2005, 32 ff.
J. BAND, M. SCHRUERS, Grokster in the International Arena, The Merits of Grokster (U.S.) and Sharman
(Australia) compared, in CRi, 2006, 6-12;
D. MCALEESE, J. CAHIR, A European Perspective on the Peer-to-Peer Model post-Grokster, in CRi 2006,
38-42;
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, December 9, 2005, BMG Music, et al. v. Cecilia Gonzales (430
F.3d 888), case Gonzales in CRi 2006, 22 ff.;
L. JIARNI, New development in Digital Copyright Protection in China: the Landmark case of Zheng
Chengsi v. Shusheng, in EIPR 2006, 299 ff.
U.S. District Court of New York, June 23, 2010, Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube and Google (07 Civ. 2103),
case Viacom.
6.
Collective Right Management Organizations.

WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Administration of Copyright, 386-400;
M. RICOLFI, Individual and collective management of copyright in a digital environment, in Paul
Torremans (ed.), Copyright Law. A Handbook of Contemporary Research, Edward Elgar, 2008, 282314.
E. BONADIO, Copyright collective licensing and the EU initiatives in the on-line music field, in DANTe
2006, 389 ff.;
P. TUMA., Pitfalls and Challenges of the EC Directive on the Collective Management of copyright and
Related Rights, in EIPR 2006, 220 ff.;
H. OLSSON, The Extended Collective License as Applied in the Nordic Countries, paper (Kopinor 25th
Anniversary International Symposium, Oslo, may 2005) (available at www.kopinor.org);
P. GILLIERON, Collecting Societies and the Digital Environment, in 37 IIC 2006, 939-969;
Y. ZEQUING, A New Impetus for China Copyright Protection. The Regulation on Collective
Administration of Copyright (2005), in EIPR 2006, 241ff.;
Spain, Lower Court Number Six Of Bajadoz, ruling February 17, 2006, Ordinary procedure 761/2005,
Sociedad General de Autores y Editores v. R. Utrera Fernandez
WEEK X: INDUSTRIAL DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
1. Definition, History and Economics of Designs.

Drafting and Filing a Design Application.
Registration Procedure.
Term of Protection and Renewal.
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Industrial designs, 112-118 (namely 112113)
Conditions for Protection (Novelty/Individual Character, Non Functional Shapes, Public

Order and Morality).
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Industrial designs, 112-118 (namely114-115)
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Industrial designs, 112-118 (namely116-117)
current edition, subfolder Industrial Design:
U. KOSCHTIAL, Design Law: Individual Character, Visibility and Functionality, in 36 IIC 2005, 297-312
2.
The Community Design.

International Design Law: The Hague Agreement Concerning the International
Registration of Industrial Designs.
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit
of Industrial Designs, 293-297
About the Community Design (available at http://oami.europa.eu/en/design/default.htm);
Guide to the International Registration of Industrial Designs (available at http://www.wipo.int/hague/
en/guide);
The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs: Main Features
and Advantage, (available at http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/designs/911/wipo_pub_911.pdf )
3.
The Exclusive Rights of a Design Owner.

Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design. Working document of the services of the
Commission, III/F/5131/91-EN, June 1991, available at http://aei.pitt.edu/1785/
Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights.

4.
Enforcement of Rights (Types of Infringements, Remedies Available to the Design

Owner, Defences to Claim of Infringement).
Exploitation of Designs (Assignments, Licenses).
IP Ownership: Avoiding Disputes;
Pakistani Textile Designers seeks to Limit Competition from Imitators;
IP Dispute becomes Business Opportunity Goldsmiths firm (India);
(These three readings are originally available at www.wipo.int., headings Activities and Services,
Small and Medium-Sizes Enterprises, IP Rights and Industrial Designs)
5.
Intellectual Property and Transfer of Technology.
6.
Successful Technology Licensing (STL). Developing Key Elements of the Negotiating

Strategy: Exercises.
WEEK XI: TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
1.
Registrable Trademarks.
Principles of Specificity and Territoriality.
Importance of Marks in Todays Economy.
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Trademarks, 67-70 and 77-82.
current edition, subfolder TM:
U.S. District Court Western District of Washington, January 22, 2003, Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com,
Inc., case LINDOWS;
European Court of Justice, June 18, 2002, case C-299/99, Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV c.
Remington Consumer Products Ltd, case PHILIPS (available at www.curia.europa.eu);
European Court of Justice November 27, 2003, case C-283/01, Shield Mark BV c. Joost Kist h.o.d.n.
Memex, case FR ELISE (available at www.curia.europa.eu);
European Court of Justice 3 May 3, 2003, case C-104/01, Libertel Groep BV c. Benelux Merkenbureau,
case LIBERTEL (available at www.curia.europa.eu);
European Court of Justice December 12, 2002, case C-273/00, Ralph Sieckmann c. Deutsches Patentund Markenamt, case SIECKMANN (available at www.curia.europa.eu).
Conditions for Protection (Introduction: Distinctiveness, Novelty/availability, Non

Deceptive/Generic/Descriptive, etc.).
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Protection of Trademark Rights, 77-90.
European Court of Justice October 6, 2005, case C-120/04, Medion AG v. Thomson multimedia Sales
Germany & Austria Gmbh, case LIFE/THOMSON LIFE (available at www.curia.europa.eu);
European Court of Justice July 7, 2005, case C-353/03, Socit des produits Nestl SA v Mars UK Lld,
case HAVE A BREAK (available at www.curia.europa.eu);
European Court of Justice, (Grand Chamber) March 17, 2005, case C-228/03, The Gilette Company et al
v LA Laboratoires Ltd OY, case GILLETTE AND SENSOR (available at www.curia.europa.eu).
2.
Special Types of Marks: Well-Known Marks, Certifications, Collective and Guarantee

Marks.
N. BOTTERO, A. MANGANI, M. RICOLFI; The Extended Protection of strong Trademarks, in 11
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 2007, 265-290;
European Court of Justice November 27, 2008, case C-252/07, Intel Corp, Inc. v CPM
United Kingdom Ltd, case INTEL.
Exercises and analysis of case law.

The Exclusive Rights of a Trademark Owner.
Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights of a Trademark Owner.

WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, The Joint Recommendation Concerning Provision for the
Protection of Well-known Marks, 361;
European Court of Justice, April 23, 2009, case C-59/08, Copad SA v Christian Dior Couture SA,
case COPAD.
B. BEEBE, A Defense of the New Federal Trademark Anti-dilution Law, in Benjamin N. Cardozo School
of Law, Jacob Burns Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, 2006, Working Paper No. 175;
Joint Recommendation Concerning Provision on the Protection of Well-known Marks, adopted by the
Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of the
World Intellectual Property Organization at the Thirty-Fourth Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of
the Member States of WIPO (September 20 to 29, 1999, available at www.wipo.int);
European Court of Justice, January 12, 2006, case C-361/04, Picasso Heirs v. OHIM and Daimler
Chrysler AG, case PICASSO;
European Court of Justice, October 23, 2003, case C-408/01, Adidas-Salomon AG e Adidas Benelux BV
c. Fitnessworld Trading Ltd., case ADIDAS-SALOMON.
Enforcement of Trademark Rights (Cancellation for lack of use - use requirements).

European Court of Justice, April 10, 2008, case C-102/07, Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux BV c. Marca
Mode CV, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherland BV and Vendex KBB Nederland BV,
case ADIDAS IV
European Court of Justice, November 12, 2002, case C-206/1, Arsenal Football Club p.l.c. v. Matthew
Reed, case ARSENAL
European Court of Justice, November 11, 1997, case C-251/95, Sabel BV v. Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler
Sport, case SABEL
European Court of Justice, September 29, 1998, case C-39/97, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha c. Metro
Goldwyn Mayer, case CANON
European Court of Justice, October 18, 2005, case C-405/03, Class International BV v. ColgatePalmolive Company, Unilever NV, Smithkline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, case AQUAFRESH
Darjeeling: Challenges in the Protection and Enforcement of IP Rights - Tea Board (India) )available at
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/case_studies/darjeeling_tea.htm)
European Court of Justice, January 27, 2007, case C-48/05, Adam Opel AG v. Autec Ag, case OPEL
European Court of Justice, December 14, 2006, case C-316/05, Nokia Corp. v. Joachim Wardell, case
NOKIA
3.
How to Protect a mark.

Case study (trademark strategy).
Advantages of the Madrid System of International Registration of Marks for SMEs (available at
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/madrid_smes.htm)
Guide To the International registration of Marks under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol (available at
http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/guide/)
4.
Protection Against Unfair Competition (Need for Protection, Legal Basis for Protection).
J.H. REICHMAN, Charting the Collapse of the Patent-Copyright Dichotomy Premises for a
Restructured International Intellectual Property System (1995), in F.M. ABBOTT, T. COTTIER, F.
GURRY, The International Intellectual Property System: Commentary and Materials, Vol. I, 284-320;
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Protection Against Unfair Competition, 130-136;
Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning
unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council
Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the
Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive);
current edition, subfolder Antitrust and Competition:
O. SOSNITZA, German Law of Unfair Competition: Toward Liberal Standards, in 36 IIC 2005, 525-541
5.
Collective trademarks and geographical indications.

M. RICOLFI, Geographical Symbols in Intellectual Property Law: the Policy Options, in Festschrift
fr Ulrich Loewenheim zum 75. Geburstag, Schutz von Kreativitt und Wettbewerb, Verlag Beck,
Munich, 2009, 231-249;
European Court of Justice, October 6, 2009, case C-301/07, Pago International GmbH c. Tirolmilch
Genossenschaft mbH, case Pago
current edition, subfolder TM, subfolder Geographical Indications :
European Court of Justice, February 26, 2008, case C-132/05, Commission v. Germany, case
PARMIGIANO REGGIANO;
Regulation No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of January 15, 2008 on the
Definition, Description, Presentation, Labelling and the Protection of Geographical Indications of Spirit
Drinks and Repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, O.J. 2008 (L39) (available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:039:0016:0054:EN:PDF);
Council Regulation No 510/2006/EC of March 20, 2006 on the Protection of Geographical Indications
and Designations of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, 2006 (O.J L93). (available
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:093:0012:0025:EN:PDF );
European Economic and Social Committee of the European Council: Opinion on Geographical
Indications and Designations (2008/C204/14), of March 12, 2008 O.J. (C-204) (available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:204:0057:0065:EN:PDF);
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Agricultural Product Quality Policy, of May
28, 2009 COM(2009) 234, (available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/policy/com2009_234_
en.pdf).
WEEK XII: TRADEMARKS (contd) AND EXPLOITATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF IP
1.
Trademarks and Domain Names.

Domain Names Disputes: WIPO Rules and Domestic Jurisdictions.
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, WIPO Internet Domain Name Processes, 457-459
current edition, subfolder TM, subfolder Domain Names:
S. CHAPMAN-J. HOLMN, New gTLDs: Protection or Threat for IP Owners?, in EIPR 2006, 315 ff.
D.W. MAHER, The UDRP: the Globalization of Trademark Rights, in 33 IIC 2002, 922 ff.
P. DORE, A n.eu beginning, in EIPR 2006, 246 ff.
X. HONG, Territorialism versus Universalism: International Intellectual Property Law in the
Internationalized domain Name system, in JWIP 2006, 1-24.
Internet Domain names Disputes: Questions and Answers (available at http://www.wipo.int/aboutip/en/studies/publications/domain_names.htm)
Joint Recommendation Concerning the Protection of Marks, and Other Industrial Property Rights in
Signs, on the Internet (available at http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/development_iplaw/pub845.htm)
current edition, subfolder TM, subfolder TM and Internet:
S.L. DOGAN, M. LEMLEY, Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet, (available at
http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2004/290/Trademarks%20and%20Consumer%20Search%20Costs
%20on%20the%20Internet.htm)
2.
WTO Cases involving TRIPS agreement.

J. PAUWELYN, The Dog That Barked But Didnt Bite: 15 Years of Intellectual Property Disputes at
the WTO, 1 J. of International Dispute Settlement 2010, 389-429;
P.K. YU, The TRIPS Enforcement Dispute, 89 Nebraska L. Rev. 2011;
S.R. Frankel, The WTO's Application of 'The Customary Rules of Interpretation of Public
International Law' to Intellectual Property, 46 Virginia J. of Intl Law 2005.
current edition, subfolder IP and TRIPS
F.M. ABBOTT, T. COTTIER, Dispute Prevention and Dispute Settlement in the Field of Intellectual
Property Rights and Electronic Commerce: US-Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act 1998 (Havana
Club), in Petersmann E-U and Pollack M.A. Transatlantic Economic Disputes: the EU, the US and the
WTO, Oxford University Press, 2003, 429- 447;
J. FELGUEROSO, TRIPS and the Dispute Settlement Understanding: The First Six Years; 30 AIPLA Q. J.
2002, 165 ff.;
H. A. CHRISTAKOS, WTO Panel Report on Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.
J. 2002, 595 ff.;
J. MENDENHALL, WTO Panel Report on Consistency of Chinese Intellectual Property Standards, 13 ASIL
Insight 2009, 4 ff.
R. HOWSE, The Canadian Generic Medicines Panel -A Dangerous Precedent in Dangerous Time, in 3
The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2000, 493-507;
C. CHARLIER, MAI-ANH NGO, An analysis of the European Communities: Protection of Trademarks and
Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs Dispute , in 10 The Journal of World
Intellectual Property, 171-186;
M. CORTS, The Battle Between the Old and the New World Over Geographical Indications, in JWIP
2004, 287-326;
M. GEUZE, H. WAGER, WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to the TRIPs Agreement, in Journal of
International Economic Law, Vol. 2, No 2, 1999, 347-384;
G. C. SHAFFER, Recognizing Public Goods in WTO Dispute Settlement: Who Participates? Who
Decides? The Case of Trips and Pharmaceutical Patent Protection, 7 Journal of International Economic
Law 2004, 2, 459-482, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1093101;
R. HOWSE, D. NEVEN, United States Section 211 Omnibus Appropriation Act of 1998
(WT/DS176/AB/R; DSR 2002:II, 589, DSR 2002:II, 683): A Comment, in The WTO Case Law of 2002:
the American Law Institute reporters Studies, Series: The American Law Institute Reporters Studies on
WTO Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, 482-522.
3.
Piracy, Counterfeiting and IP Enforcement.

R. M. HILTY, A. KUR, A. PEUKERT , Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property,
Competition and Tax Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on Criminal Measures Aimed at Ensuring the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, in
37 IIC 2006, 970-977
P. L. RONCAGLIA, Handling of Counterfeit Goods: a Hands-on Problem for the Italian Criminal
System, in 92 The Trademark Reporter 2002, 1393 ff.
E. BONADIO, Remedies and sanctions for the infringement of Intellectual Property rights under EC
law, in EIPR 2008, 320 ff.
current edition, subfolder Piracy, Counterfeiting and IP Enforcement:
P. L. RONCAGLIA, Recent Developments in IP litigation in Italy, The Legal Media Group Guide to the
Worlds Leading Trade Mark Practitioners, in Managing Intellectual Property, 2008, 81 ff.
P. L. RONCAGLIA, Enforcement: Perfecting the System, Italy 3rd edition: IP Focus 2008, in Managing
Intellectual Property, December 2007/January 2008, 92 ff.
T. TAKENAKA, Adequate Compensation for Patent Infringement Damages: A Comparative Study of
damage Measurements in Japan and the United States, in Patent Law and Theory, Edward Publishing
Elgar Ltd, 2008
Directive 2004/48/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council of April 29, 2004 on The
Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, 2004 OJ (L157) (available at http://eur-lex.euro
pa.eu/RECH_menu.do)
Third Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study, May 2006
Economist Corporate Networks, China: IPRs: Protecting Assets in the Information, Communication and
Entertainment Market
WEEK XIII: INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF IP
1.
(SECOND EXAM)
2.
Intellectual Property Enforcement on the Internet: From a Prospective of
Access to Knowledge.
X. LI and C. M. CORREA, Intellectual Property Enforcement: International Perspectives, Edward
Edgar Publishing Limited 2009, 3-42, 133-156.
F. NORONHA and J. MALCOLM, Access to Knowledge: A Guide to Everyone, Consumer
International 2010, 87-106, available at http://www.consumersinternational.org/media/457947/a2ka-guide-for-everyone-english.pdf.
M. L. MUELLER, Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance, The MIT Press
2010, 129-157.
Hong Xue, An Anatomical Study of the United States versus China at the World Trade Organisation
on Intellectual Property Enforcement, 31 Eur. Intell. Prop. Rev. 2009, 292-299.
3.
Protection of Cultural Heritage, Traditional Knowledge/Folklore, and Copyright
4.
Role of African Regional Organisations in the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights

(ARIPO, OAPI).
5.
Layout Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits: Definition of Subject Matter of

Protection.
Policy Considerations for Protecting Layout-Designs (Scope of Protection, International
Protection, The Washington Treaty).
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, Industrial Designs and Integrated Circuits 112-120;
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit
of Industrial Designs, 293-297
current edition, subfolder Layout Designs:
I.H CHIU, Y.W. SHEN, A Sui Generis Intellectual Property Right for Layout Designs on Printed Circuit
Boards? An Analysis of Current Intellectual Property Laws and proposal for Reforms, in EIPR 2006, 3850
The Dichotomy between Intellectual Creations and Functional Creations in the

International Conventions and its Collapse.
J.H. REICHMAN, Charting the Collapse of the Patent-Copyright Dichotomy Premises for a
Restructured International Intellectual Property System (1995), in F.M. ABBOTT, T. COTTIER, F.
GURRY, The International Intellectual Property System: Commentary and Materials, Kluwer Law,
London-Boston, Vol. I, 284-299, in WEEK XI. 5;
P.L.C. TORREMANS, Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law (5th ed, 2008), Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 5-26.

Wipo LLM Syllabus 2011

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Wipo LLM Syllabus 2011

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UNIVERSITY OF

LL.M. (MASTER OF LAWS) IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

WEEK I: GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Registration and administrative matters.

Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property.

Intellectual Property & Development.

Visit to the University Library.

Registration at Torino University.

WEEK II: GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (CONTD)

Private International Law Issues in Intellectual Property.

N. BOSCHIERO, Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights. Comment on Article 8 of the Rome II

WEEK III: PATENTS

History and Economics of Patent Law.

Disclosing and Claiming the Invention.

Patentable Subject Matter.

Patentability Requirements: Novelty and Statutory Bars (Prejudicial Behavior).

Case Study in private international law.

Patentability Requirements: Inventive Step or Non-obviousness.

Enforcing Patent Rights.

Defences to Patent Infringement.

Important and Current Global/European Issues.

WEEK IV: PATENTS (CONTD)

The Case of Biotechnological patents.

IPR Enforcement Dispute Settlement Under TRIPs

WEEK V: VISIT AT THE WIPO HEADQUARTERS IN GENEVA

New Developments in the WIPO.

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PTC).

Madrid System, Registration of Trademarks.

Intellectual Property and Contemporary Issues: the WTO Perspective.

Plant Variety Protection and the UPOV System and

Arbitration and Mediation, Alternative Dispute Settlement Resolutions.

Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions (Folklore) and Recent

Meeting and appointments with WIPO Officials.

Resources for Food and

WEEK VI: PATENTS (CONTD)

Introduction to Tutorial on Antitrust and Unfair Competition.

Toward a Contractually Reconstructed Commons?

Intellectual Property and Climate Change.

The Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions.

Decision T 1173/97 of the Technical Board of Appeal (July 1, 1998);

WEEK VII: COMPETITION AND ANTITRUST

The Prohibition of Restrictive Practice.

The Antitrust Scrutiny of Refusal to Deal in Intellectual Property and Price

Tutorial: antitrust and unfair competition.

WEEK VIII: COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS

The World of Copyright: an Overview.

International Protection of Copyright and Related Rights.

Subject matter and protection requirements.

Authorship and ownership: Employee works and Commissioned Works

Copyright in Commissioned Works and Journalists Copyright.

Assignment and Licensing of Copyright.

The European Perspective in Copyright.

Harmonization of Term of Protection.

WEEK IX: COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS (CONTD)

Copyright And Sui Generis Protection For Functional Innovation.

Infringement of Copyright and Related Rights.

Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment.

Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment (contd).

Enforcing Copyrights against File-Sharers.

Collective Right Management Organizations.

WEEK X: INDUSTRIAL DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

1. Definition, History and Economics of Designs.