Report on the 16th Anniversary EIPTN Conference 2024
UCLouvain
Saint-Louis Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
4th – 5th October 2024
Day 1: Friday, 4th October 2024
The conference began with a welcome from Isabelle Hachez, Vice-Rector of UCLouvain Saint-Louis Bruxelles. She greeted the participants, wished them an engaging and fruitful two-day event, and highlighted the importance of IP education. Following Hachez, Laurent Manderieux, Chair of EIPTN, expressed his gratitude to UCLouvain for hosting the event. He introduced the EIPTN Committee members, provided a brief history of the network’s spectacular growth over the last 6 years, and emphasized its mission to support education and research in the field of IP. He underscored EIPTN’s role in promoting innovative approaches in IP teaching and learning. Alain Strowel from UCLouvain took the floor next, speaking about the history of the University of Louvain, which will celebrate its 600th anniversary in 2025. He touched upon the challenges of educating Generation Z students, particularly their tendency to focus on electronic devices. He highlighted that while reading remains essential, educators must also incorporate new technological tools to enhance engagement.
Session 1: AI and IP Teaching
The session, chaired by Ulrika Wennersten, opened with Vishv Priya Kohli from Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, discussing how generative AI can enhance both quality and innovation in IP teaching. Kohli highlighted the practical benefits of AI tools in lesson planning, classroom management, and student engagement while acknowledging the challenges surrounding algorithmic biases and data security. Her presentation drew from her experience at Harvard University’s AI Sandbox. During the Q&A session, Dr. Kohli was asked whether she uses AI for formal assessments. She clarified that she does not use AI for grading, but she employs it as a preparation tool to help students engage with the material ahead of exams. She was also asked about the use of AI-generated multiple-choice quizzes and confirmed that she uses them to ensure students grasp essential legal directives and regulations. Another attendee inquired about whether students have access to premium AI tools such as Copilot, to which Kohli replied that while she uses Copilot for her own purposes, she does not provide students with access, nor does she require them to use it. Several questions followed: one attendee asked if Kohli uses AI for podcasts, and she confirmed she does for legal directives, though she stressed the need for careful review. Another asked if AI requires more time; Kohli noted that while it takes time to learn, it becomes a time-saving tool once mastered. The discussion concluded with a question about balancing the importance of reading with the use of AI. Kohli stressed that reading remains critical for understanding case law and that AI should be used as a complement to traditional learning, not a replacement.
The second speaker, Theodoros Chiou from Panteion University, Athens, addressed the challenges of teaching copyright law to non-jurists in the age of generative AI. He discussed the foundational challenges AI poses to the human-centric copyright system and introduced an interactive approach using online questionnaires to engage students. In the discussion that followed, Chiou was asked whether he considered developing a guide for IP creators to address these emerging challenges. He agreed that such a guide could be useful and noted that his course already covers related ethical issues. Another question focused on the biases and risks associated with AI-generated content, particularly fake news. Chiou acknowledged these concerns, stating that while it is a significant issue, the direction of policy is not yet clear. A third participant asked how students with no legal background adapt to the course content, to which Chiou responded that while students may initially struggle, he provides them with sufficient legal context to grasp the core issues. He also confirmed that AI is not used to generate issues for his presentations, as the course material is designed specifically for students’ understanding.
Peter Gottschalk from Lund University, Sweden, spoke next on the challenges in teaching IP law and AI. He highlighted the need for interdisciplinary approaches to equip students with technical and legal insights. Gottschalk discussed the complexities of teaching patent law in the context of AI, focusing on the need for up-to-date knowledge due to rapid technological advancements. During the Q&A session, Gottschalk was asked about the background of his students. He explained that his students come from various disciplines, including economics and social sciences, and that his IP law course is part of a broader program on trade and tax law. One participant asked whether Gottschalk simplifies legal language for non-law students, and he responded that while IP law is inherently complex, he provides additional seminars to ensure that all students fully understand the material.
The AI and IP teaching session continued with a presentation by Rubén Cano Pérez, FIDE Foundation, Madrid, and Academic Fellow at Bocconi University. Rubén Cano Pérez’s presentation addressed the complexities of applying traditional IP frameworks to AI-generated content, particularly focusing on the challenges of authorship and ownership. He explained that current legal systems are structured around the presumption of human creators, leaving significant gaps in the treatment of AI as an independent creator. This issue is particularly pressing as AI-generated works increase, raising fundamental questions about how rights should be assigned. The discussion following the presentation focused on several critical points. A participant raised the issue of regulatory restrictions on AI tools in Europe, which limit their use compared to other regions. Pérez acknowledged these constraints and emphasised the importance of conducting thorough risk assessments before employing AI tools. Another participant questioned whether EU legislation hampers technological advancement, especially in comparison to the USA. Wennersten agreed that the legislative environment presents challenges but underscored the necessity of complying with regulations. A final query addressed how Europe can maintain leadership in technology given these constraints. Pérez suggested that balancing innovation with regulatory compliance would require ongoing dialogue and strategic adjustments.
Session 2: Inspiration in IP and its Effects on Teaching
Session 2, chaired by George Papanikolaou, featured Julien Cabay from ULB, Brussels, who introduced his innovative TRIPI TRAPI teaching method, using creative copying to teach IP law through interdisciplinary collaboration between law and engineering students. Cabay shared successful examples of student projects that creatively replicated well-known designs while maintaining IP compliance. He emphasised the importance of combining technical expertise with legal analysis. Cabay’s presentation generated questions about the challenges of teaching such an interdisciplinary course. He explained that while students from different disciplines approach the material differently, the creative copying exercise helps bridge the gap between legal and technical perspectives. One participant asked about the balance between legal theory and technical skills in the course, to which Cabay replied that students are taught to consider both aspects simultaneously, ensuring a holistic understanding of IP law.
Monirul Azam from Södertörn University, Stockholm, discussed the need to equip IP students with the tools to address global challenges such as climate change and public health. He argued that law schools often fail to prepare students for real-world IP scenarios, particularly in the global south. His interactive teaching approach encourages students to explore IP’s role in promoting sustainability and development. During the discussion, Azam was asked about the diversity of his students, given that his courses attract individuals from various countries. He explained that this diversity enhances the learning experience, as students bring different perspectives and legal frameworks into the discussion. Another participant inquired about his assessment methods, to which Azam responded that he does not use traditional exams but instead requires students to participate in discussions and submit memoranda.
Ingrida Veikša from Turiba University, Riga, Latvia, presented an insightful analysis of the delicate distinction between inspiration and plagiarism in intellectual property law. She underscored originality as the key criterion in determining when inspiration crosses the line into appropriation. Drawing from Latvian examples, she explained the difference between unconscious influence—where a creator is unintentionally shaped by prior works—and deliberate plagiarism, where one knowingly claims another’s work as their own. Veikša also discussed the legal consequences of plagiarism, highlighting the infringement of both moral and property rights. She stressed the vital role of education in preventing plagiarism by equipping students with a thorough understanding of intellectual property protection and ethical standards. In the subsequent discussion, participants voiced concerns about the various ways students attempt to evade detection, particularly through the translation of materials. It was noted that many students struggle to differentiate between permissible influence and appropriation, especially when citing legal texts. Veikša agreed, suggesting that formative assessments are essential for identifying potential plagiarism early in the course. She concluded by emphasising that education should focus on encouraging critical thinking and genuine inspiration, rather than merely policing academic limitations.
Joe Sekhon, Associate Head of Research and Innovation and Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property at the University of Portsmouth, presented on the innovative use of ChatGPT as a teaching tool in IP law. He emphasised the transformative role ChatGPT has played since its launch, particularly in providing students with immediate clarification on complex topics and assisting them in assignments. This AI tool, according to Sekhon, has encouraged greater self-directed learning, allowing students to explore IP law at their own pace. During the question-and-answer session, several important topics were discussed. One participant asked about the use of AI-generated multiple-choice questions in exams. Sekhon acknowledged that while AI can support assessments, students who engage more actively with the material tend to achieve better results. The conversation also touched on the need for clear institutional policies regarding AI use in education, particularly in relation to intellectual property and data protection. Sekhon expressed optimism that sharing his experiences would encourage more educators to explore AI tools in teaching, enhancing interactivity and innovation in the classroom.
Session 2 Continued: Inspiration in IP and its Effects on Teaching
Chaired by Alison Firth, the afternoon session resumed with Qinqing Xu, Lecturer at the University of Manchester, presenting on the challenges posed by AI-generated content in IP teaching, particularly concerning plagiarism detection. Xu shared the findings from experiments using AI tools such as ChatGPT and SCISPACE, revealing that while these tools generate content swiftly, they often fail to detect plagiarism in AI-generated works. During the Q&A, Xu was asked if she had tested these tools on her own writing and confirmed that, surprisingly, her original work was incorrectly flagged as AI-generated. Another question addressed how educators can distinguish between AI-generated content and authentic student work, to which Xu suggested focusing on assignments requiring critical thinking and deep analysis, areas where AI tools struggle.
Following Xu, Janice Denoncourt, Associate Professor at Nottingham Law School, gave a presentation on fostering interdisciplinary discourse between intellectual property and sustainability, emphasising the role of IP law in promoting sustainability and discussing the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Denoncourt encouraged educators to use historical rationales for IP rights alongside sustainability-related case studies—such as ‘Green’ trademarks and corporate non-financial reporting of IP assets—to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of IP’s role in sustainable economies. In the discussion that followed, questions arose regarding the assessment of students within this interdisciplinary framework. Denoncourt recommended employing problem-based questions and academic posters as effective tools for evaluating students’ grasp of the subject, especially when considering their diverse academic backgrounds. She also clarified that while her course predominantly focuses on patents and innovation, other IP rights such as trademarks and copyrights are covered in separate modules, ensuring a well-rounded approach to teaching IP and sustainability.
Session 3: IP Teaching Methods and Techniques in the Forefront
Session 3, chaired by Vishv Priya Kohli of the EIPTN Committee, began with a presentation by Giulia Priora from the NOVA School of Law, Lisbon, where she introduced her redesign of a Master’s course in Intellectual Property and Sustainability. The course employs an academic-review-based model, requiring students to critically engage with influential pieces of IP legal scholarship. Priora outlined the course’s objectives: to enhance students’ understanding of IP law, improve their ability to make sound methodological decisions and strengthen their analytical skills, both in writing and oral presentations. The discussion following the presentation centred on how students are assessed within this innovative framework. Priora mentioned providing individual feedback and examples of well-executed reviews, although she is considering offering more structured guidance. A question about AI-generated submissions led to a wider discussion about the limitations of AI in replicating genuine engagement with academic materials, highlighting the need for students to actively engage with the content.
The session continued with Anna Labedzka from Kingston University, London, who spoke on the effective use of communication tools in teaching IP principles. Labedzka described how her students engage in practical projects such as posters, social media campaigns, and presentations directed at diverse audiences, including local business communities. This interactive approach encourages students to not only understand IP from a legal perspective but also as consumers and potential rights holders, promoting deeper engagement and critical thinking. The discussion that followed centred on the interdisciplinary nature of these activities, with a focus on accommodating students from various academic backgrounds. Labedzka addressed the challenges of assessing diverse student experiences, noting that assignments are tailored to reflect the different abilities of her students. She also mentioned the creation of an informal IP club, where students can discuss IP issues beyond the formal classroom setting. This initiative, she explained, fosters both personal and professional development, equipping future legal professionals with essential communication skills.
Giulia Dore from Trento University, Italy, closed the session with a presentation on her course designed to teach IP to non-lawyers in fields such as economics and management. Dr. Dore stressed the critical need to bridge the knowledge gap between legal and non-legal professionals, particularly in IP-intensive industries. Her course, “Intellectual Property Law and Innovation,” aims to equip students with a foundational understanding of IP and its relevance in policy and business practices. Through a blend of theoretical instruction and hands-on learning, including case studies and interactive modules, the course fosters a comprehensive grasp of IP’s role in real-world scenarios. The ensuing discussion focused on the challenges of implementing such interdisciplinary courses. Dore acknowledged institutional hurdles but also highlighted the strong support she received from both her colleagues and students, who recognise the value of this approach. The dialogue also underscored the broader importance of raising IP awareness across professions, not just within the legal field, as it plays a pivotal role in fostering innovation and strategic decision-making.
Special Keynote Speech: Supporting Research for Promoting the IP Culture at Universities
Laurent Manderieux introduced the Special Keynote Speech by stating how support from NGOs to IP education is essential for IP teachers, and congratulated 4iP Council for Europe for being among those who encourage and develop initiatives in this respect.
In this speech, Axel Ferrazzini, General Manager of 4iP Council for Europe, Brussels, outlined the Council’s initiatives to foster IP culture at universities through webinars, research grants, and academic collaborations. He underscored the importance of empirical data in IP education and encouraged further collaboration between IP organisations and academia. In the Q&A session, Ferrazzini was asked whether 4iP Council has been involved in university projects aimed at disseminating knowledge. He explained that while they have not yet engaged in such projects, they regularly collaborate with international IP organisations. Another participant asked about language accessibility for students who do not write in English, to which Ferrazzini replied that while submissions are typically in English, there have been exceptions where translations were accepted.
Session 3 Continued: IP Teaching methods and techniques in the forefront
The session, chaired by Yolanda Bergel Sainz de Baranda, continued as the final session of the day. Kalpana Tyagi, Assistant Professor at Maastricht University, opened the session with a presentation on ‘The Innovator’s Legal Aid Clinic’, a program she developed to provide students with real-world experience in IP and competition law. Tyagi emphasised the benefits of engaging students in practical projects, such as writing newsletters and conducting public-speaking exercises. During the questions and discussion, Tyagi explained that while the clinic initially began as a voluntary initiative, it holds the potential for integration into formal curricula with credit allocations. She also highlighted that students take the lead in producing newsletters and participating in other activities, fostering a sense of ownership and developing practical skills.
The session concluded with a presentation by François Wéry and Vincent Cassiers from UCLouvain. Their talk, ‘From Theory to Practice: Transforming Students into Project Managers and Legal Experts with the Help of Artificial Intelligence,’ provided a detailed overview of a group exercise they conducted in which students used AI to analyse and negotiate IP contracts. Wéry and Cassiers emphasised the importance of critical thinking and human oversight in AI-assisted tasks, noting that while AI can generate content, it often lacks the nuance needed for legal accuracy. In the discussion that followed, participants asked about the mindset required for using AI effectively in legal education. Wéry and Cassiers responded that while AI can be a useful tool, students must learn to question and verify AI-generated content, as it is not always reliable. Another question focused on the sustainability of AI, to which Wéry noted that while sustainability is increasingly important in the context of AI, discussions at the university level are still in their early stages.
The first day of the conference concluded with a networking dinner for speakers and EIPTN Committee members.
Day 2: Saturday, 5th October 2024
Session 4: Re-visiting IP for excellence in teaching
Session 4, chaired by Laurent Manderieux, commenced the second day with a thought-provoking presentation by Manuel Desantes from the University of Alicante, Spain. Desantes argued that the shift from simply “new” (novatio) to “innovation” (in-novatio) reflects a necessary transformation in how IP should be structured and applied to meet the demands of a new era. This, he suggested, would have radical implications for IP law and teaching. The questions from the audience were as diverse as the presentation’s scope. The first question addressed the overwhelming abundance of data and creative outputs, asking whether IP’s role is now to manage this surplus effectively. Another question highlighted the need for IP to balance the protection of both old and new creative works, such as architecture and performances, given that technological advances present novel challenges. There was also a query on whether the existing IP framework needs structural reform or if incremental policy adjustments would suffice to address these emerging challenges. In response, Desantes underscored the idea that IP must evolve alongside societal changes. While acknowledging the historical role of IP from the 19th century, he emphasized that today’s exponential growth in data and creative works requires a fundamental reevaluation of IP’s purpose. He warned that without a willingness to adapt and reform, IP law may struggle to meet the challenges of a world increasingly focused on issues such as sustainability and technological dependence. Desantes concluded that this shift marks the beginning of an era where IP must serve society’s broader needs, advocating for systemic change to avoid potential societal and environmental crises.
Irene Calboli from University of Geneva, Bocconi University, and Texas A&M University examined the relationship between IP law and sustainability, particularly the practices of reusing, repairing, upcycling, and recycling. Calboli argued that the current IP framework, which emphasises control and exclusion, is often at odds with the principles of a circular economy, where reducing waste and reusing resources is paramount. She called for new exceptions and limitations, such as universal repair and recycling rights, to support sustainability goals without hindering innovation. The discussion that followed addressed several key issues. One participant asked about the role of indigenous cultures in IP and sustainability, to which Calboli responded that the approach depends on the country and context, as some nations push strongly for IP protection while others are less interested. Another participant inquired about her favourite example of sustainability in IP, and Calboli noted that most cases are resolved proactively by rights holders to avoid sustainability-related conflicts, leaving few disputes to be addressed formally. The final question focused on the importance of sustainability standards in IP, particularly in relation to engineering and technological fields. Calboli emphasised the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly with engineers, to ensure that sustainability goals are integrated effectively within IP frameworks.
Next, Murtaza Mohiqi, Assistant Professor at the University of Agder, Norway, discussed ‘Ethical AI in IP: Developing a Global Cross-Disciplinary Curriculum for Responsible Innovation’. Mohiqi presented a curriculum that integrates legal, ethical, and technical perspectives on AI and IP. He stressed the importance of teaching students to navigate the ethical challenges posed by AI technologies and shared examples from his work in both the global north and south. During the discussion, Mohiqi addressed a question about the voluntary nature of the program, acknowledging its potential for formal recognition and credit allocation in the future. He also discussed the importance of intercultural competence in understanding AI’s global impact. There was strong interest in fostering global collaboration, with participants suggesting shared case studies and student exchanges as ways to enhance the learning experience. Mohiqi highlighted the value of student-led initiatives, such as producing newsletters, to deepen engagement and learning.
Special Session: IP Public Authorities and IP Teaching in Universities
In this, chaired by Laurent Manderieux, Claire Duranton from the EUIPO Academy presented the Academy’s initiatives aimed at enhancing IP education. She outlined key programmes such as the IP Essentials MOOC, which offers foundational courses on copyright, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. These resources, along with the Academy Learning Portal, are designed to support both students and professionals in gaining certifications and deeper insights into IP law. Duranton also highlighted collaborations with national IP offices and the Pan-European Seal Programme, which provide valuable networking and learning opportunities. The discussion that followed centred on integrating IP tools into academic curricula, including a focus on how national IP offices can tailor their resources to local needs. Duranton addressed questions about the challenge of updating the current EPO /EUIPO IP Teaching kit, confirming that updates are planned due to the kit’s popularity. Further questions explored the Academy’s plans to extend research programmes to include magistrates and enterprises, which Duranton acknowledged as a potential future development. She also emphasised the importance of co-creation in events with IP offices and noted that helping SMEs with filing and fee coverage would be a strategic focus moving forward.
Gabriele Gagliani from the US Mission to the EU presented a transatlantic perspective on intellectual property, focusing on the US IP Attaché Program. He explained how the programme operates globally, with offices in key locations, including Geneva (WTO /WIPO), China, Bangkok (Asean), and Brussels (EU and Western Europe in general), where regional /national policy and legislative developments are closely monitored. These offices also offer guidance to US stakeholders on navigating the complex international IP landscape, removing market access barriers, and promoting best practices through collaboration with governmental authorities. Gagliani placed particular emphasis on the importance of IP territoriality in legal education, illustrating how differences in laws and procedures across jurisdictions can present significant challenges for educators and practitioners. During the discussion, Gagliani addressed the complexities of AI and IP regulation, noting recent positive developments such as the Executive Order from the US President in October 2023. He discussed the ongoing work on guidelines for AI, including issues related to disclosure and deepfakes. The conversation also explored US-EU collaborations on AI regulation, the territorial differences in IP laws, and the broader societal implications of these developments, particularly in education. Gagliani encouraged educators to incorporate examples of legislation that indirectly affect IP to provide students with a broader, dynamic view of the field.
Alain Strowel from UCLouvain concluded the session by discussing how universities and public IP authorities can collaborate more effectively, particularly in providing access to data and tools. He emphasised the importance of aligning IP education with societal challenges such as sustainability and digital empowerment.
Session 4 Continued: Re-visiting IP for excellence in teaching
In the continued session, chaired by Ulrika Wennersten, Thibault Gisclard from Lille University, France, explored the complexities of teaching patent law, using monoclonal antibodies as a key case study in the field of medical innovation. He emphasised the challenges of drafting patents in this area, particularly the tension between structural and functional definitions. Gisclard highlighted the economic importance of monoclonal antibodies, noting their significant role in diagnostics and therapeutics, and the legal difficulties in protecting these innovations across various jurisdictions, including the European Patent Office and the US Supreme Court. The Q&A session delved into several key issues. One participant raised a question about assessing inventive steps in patent applications, especially in cases where minor characteristics are involved. Gisclard explained that precise definitions increase the likelihood of patent approval, but acknowledged the difficulty, as companies often rush to patent as soon as they discover a molecule. Another inquiry focused on the timeline for registering patents in relation to antibody development, to which Gisclard responded that in some cases, the process can be swift. A final question concerned the outcomes of trials where claims cannot be fully substantiated. Gisclard noted that many patents are still granted in such cases, even when functional definitions or descriptions are not fully detailed.
Haris Hasić from the University of Travnik, Bosnia and Herzegovina, presented on the societal and cultural sensitivities involved in teaching IP law in developing countries. He noted that students in developing nations often perceive IP as a tool of developed world dominance, which can hinder their engagement. To counter this, Hasić advocated for the use of local examples, such as domestic businesses and products, rather than multinational corporations, to make IP concepts more relatable and enhance knowledge retention. In his teaching, Hasić encourages students to create IP-protectable content, such as copyrightable works, early in the course. Subsequent assignments are directly tied to this original work, fostering a practical understanding of IP. Additionally, students are tasked with identifying local products that could be eligible for geographical indication protection and developing strategies for formal recognition. This hands-on approach not only educates students but also builds networks between students and local businesses seeking IP advice. During the Q&A, Hasić was asked about the status of Bosnia’s new IP legislation. He explained that drafts has passed public consultation and will soon proceed to the parliamentary assembly. Another question focused on Bosnia’s compliance with EU regulations. Hasić noted that, under an agreement with the EU, Bosnia will need to align its IP laws with EU standards within a set timeframe.
Andrea Valdo Mocchi from Bocconi University, Milan, closed the session with a presentation on the use of AI to enhance legal reasoning in introductory IP courses. He explored the potential of integrating AI into teaching, focusing on how generative AI can be used to create interactive exercises that allow students to directly engage with IP concepts, such as patenting or copyrighting generated content. This innovative approach shifts from the traditional methods of passive learning to more active, problem-solving-based education, fostering deeper understanding and retention. Mocchi highlighted the dual challenges AI presents: while it opens new opportunities for practical learning, it also raises legal questions regarding ownership, validity, and enforcement, especially in a future with advanced artificial general intelligence. During the Q&A, the discussion centred on AI’s role in generating problem-solving exercises, with one participant asking whether AI could generate both mediocre and excellent examples for students. Mocchi affirmed that AI could indeed achieve this. Another comment suggested raising the educational standards for law courses, especially at the introductory level. Finally, a participant highlighted a self-assessment tool for innovative teaching approaches, which Mocchi acknowledged as a useful resource for educators.
At the conclusion of the session, Ulrika Wennersten shared insights from a book by Björn Liljeqvist on study techniques, highlighting that the transition to university can be challenging and that consistent attendance is key to success. She argued that learning takes time, with brain development often occurring during breaks and informal moments.
Open Committee Meeting Highlights – 16th Anniversary EIPTN Conference 2024
The EIPTN Committee Meeting commenced with Laurent Manderieux acknowledging the significant contributions made by the conference participants, including presenters, moderators, and attendees. He highlighted the success of the event and expressed gratitude to UCLouvain for hosting the conference. Manderieux thanked all Committee Members for their strong engagement.
Tribute to a Late Colleague:
The meeting began with a heartfelt tribute to Antoon Quaedvlieg, a respected colleague from the University of The Hague, whose recent passing deeply affected the EIPTN community. Manderieux spoke about the colleague’s exceptional contributions to legal research, lawmaking, and student mentorship.
The mission of EIPTN and Future Directions:
Professor Manderieux, on behalf of the entire EIPTN Committee, reaffirmed the foundational goals of EIPTN. He stressed the importance of continuing to gather educators and researchers from across Europe to exchange ideas on best practices in IP teaching. The Open Committee discussed strategies to further enhance the visibility of EIPTN’s mission, especially in promoting innovative teaching methods such as problem-based learning and fostering interdisciplinary approaches to IP education. Manderieux emphasised that the network, that grew by 50% over the last 6 years, should strive to address significant public policy issues, including sustainability and digitalisation, to ensure that IP education remains relevant and impactful, particularly in the face of diminishing public support for higher education in Europe.
In this respect, the EIPTN Open Committee unanimously agreed with the following Declaration, read by Manderieux:
DECLARATION
“ Education and teaching play a crucial role in fostering understanding and knowledge of intellectual property law, ensuring that students and professionals are well-equipped to navigate an increasingly complex world. Therefore, the network 2024 Meeting reaffirms its commitment to its aims:
“The main aim of the EIPTN is to bring together individuals from across Europe to exchange ideas on best practice in intellectual property teaching and learning activities.
In particular, the EIPTN aims to awareness and disseminate information relating to:
innovations in the teaching of intellectual property; problem-based teaching and learning; and multi-disciplinary teaching and learning.””
EIPTN’s Recent Activities:
One of the key points of discussion was EIPTN’s recent initiatives, including the successful launch of a book focusing on IP teaching. Despite limited resources, EIPTN provided promotional support for the book, which was well-received within academic circles. Manderieux also highlighted EIPTN’s ongoing cooperation with international organisations such as WIPO, EIPO, ATRIP, and EPIP. These partnerships have helped foster mutual support in IP education, avoiding competitive dynamics while enhancing cooperation.
Status of Working Groups:
The Committee discussed the activity levels of various EIPTN working groups. All working groups work on a voluntary basis and pro bono, with no EIPTN funding available. Some working groups have requested funding from EIPTN in order to develop activities while this funding is neither available nor possible, and as a consequence did not develop any project. On the contrary, others have continued to flourish. Ulrika Wennersten’s working group on IP art design was highlighted as an example of sustained productivity and innovation. Manderieux encouraged wider participation in these working groups, emphasising the importance of maintaining momentum. He also introduced a new initiative: a working group focused on the implications of AI in education, particularly its role in exam grading and other academic challenges. The group would explore how AI can be responsibly integrated into teaching and assessment methodologies.
Proposal for Online Workshops:
Vishv Priya Kohli presented a proposal to hold four online workshops before the next annual conference. These workshops would provide practical, hands-on guidance to IP educators on teaching tools and methods. The topics would include creating educational podcasts, developing effective prompts for classroom discussions, and crafting both multiple-choice and short-answer questions. Joe Sekhon suggested that these sessions could be held via Zoom or similar platforms, ensuring accessibility for all EIPTN members. The proposal received support from the open Committee, who agreed that these workshops would provide valuable resources for educators, particularly in the context of rapidly evolving digital tools.
Academic Materials and Research Initiatives:
The meeting also discussed the need for new academic materials, particularly in areas such as the circular economy, traditional knowledge, and sustainability. While no immediate suggestions were raised, the Committee invited members to reflect on these topics and consider future research collaborations. Manderieux proposed reaching out to international organisations, such as WIPO and UNESCO, to contribute ideas and content in these emerging areas. This was seen as a way to expand the relevance of EIPTN’s educational materials while ensuring that they align with global policy developments.
Next Annual Conference:
Looking ahead, Manderieux confirmed that the next EIPTN annual conference would maintain the current two-day format, as it balances the need for comprehensive discussions with the time constraints faced by academics during the academic year. He re-confirmed that the 2025 conference would take place in October 2025 at Portsmouth University, United Kingdom, which had successfully bid already last year to host the event in 2025. He thanked the University of Portsmouth for its willingness to host and support the event, and emphasised that the EIPTN would work closely with the organisers to ensure the conference’s continued success.
Appointment of Professor Alain Strowel to the EIPTN Committee:
As the meeting neared its conclusion, Manderieux proposed the appointment of Alain Strowel from Université Catholique de Louvain to the EIPTN Committee. This proposal was made in recognition of Strowel’s substantial contributions to the success of the 2024 conference, particularly his role in facilitating academic discussions and his insights into the relationship between public IP authorities and universities. The Open Committee unanimously accepted the proposal by acclamation. Professor Strowel expressed his gratitude for the appointment, praising the collaborative spirit of the EIPTN and acknowledging the challenging yet rewarding nature of the conference.
Acknowledgement of Conference Organisers:
Before the meeting adjourned, Prof. Alison Firth invited the audience to recognise Professor Manderieux’s exceptional leadership and unwavering commitment to the success of EIPTN and its annual conference. The attendees responded with enthusiastic applause, acknowledging his tireless efforts. Manderieux, in turn, thanked the organisers, the speakers, and all participants for their dedication, and reiterated EIPTN’s commitment to advancing the teaching and learning of intellectual property law across Europe.
Closing Remarks and Adjournment:
In his closing remarks, Professor Manderieux expressed his satisfaction with the outcomes of the conference, emphasising the importance of collaboration, innovation, and continuous learning within the IP community. He formally declared the Committee meeting closed and extended a final note of appreciation to all those involved.
16th Anniversary EIPTN Conference 2024
04- 05 October 2024
DETAILED IN PRESENCE CONFERENCE PROGRAM
Venue:
UCLouvain Saint-Louis Bruxelles
Room P02
43 Bd. du Jardin Botanique
1000 Brussels (Belgium)
Conference Program
Day 1
Friday, 04 October 2024
09:15-09:45 Registration
09:45-10:00 Welcome and introduction
- Isabelle Hachez, Vice-Rector of UCLouvain Saint-Louis Bruxelles
- Laurent Manderieux, Chair, EIPTN
- Alain Strowel, Professor, UCLouvain
Morning Session
1-AI and IP teaching
10:00-11:30
Chair: Ulrika Wennersten, EIPTN Committee
– Teaching with generative AI – enhancing quality and new channels in IP teaching, Vishv Priya Kohli, Associate Professor, Department of Business Humanities and Law, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
– The AI Teaching and learning assistant; using ChatGPT to create interactive IP seminar and assessment content, Joe Sekhon, Associate Head (Research and Innovation), Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom
– Teaching Copyright law to non-jurists in the era of Generative AI, Theodoros Chiou, Adj. Lecturer, Department of Communication, Media and Culture, Panteion University, Athens, Greece
Chair: Adoración Perez Troya, EIPTN Committee
– Challenges in Teaching Intellectual Property Law and AI, Peter Gottschalk, Lecturer, Lund University, Sweden
– Navigating the Intersection of AI and IP: Enhancing Quality and Innovation in IP Education, Ruben Cano Perez, FIDE Foundation, Madrid, Spain
11:30 – 11:45: Coffee break
11:45-13:00
2- Inspiration in IP and its effects on teaching
Chair: George Papanikolaou, EIPTN Committee
– TRIPI TRAPI – Learning IP through Creative Copying, Julien Cabay, Professor of Intellectual Creation and Innovation Law and Co-director of JurisLab, ULB, Brussels, Belgium
– Inspiration in IP Teaching: equipping students to deal with the global challenges using stakeholder perspectives and sustainability dimensions, Monirul Azam, Department of Law, Södertörn University, Stockholm, Sweden
– Inspiration and Sharing in Intellectual Property, Ingrida Veiksa, Professor, Turiba University, Riga, Latvia
13:00 – 14:30: Lunch break
Afternoon Session
14:30 – 15:45
2- Inspiration in IP and its effects on teaching (cont’d)
Chair: Alison Firth, EIPTN Committee
– Sharing and Plagiarism in AI Generated Works and Impact on IP Teaching, Qinqing Xu, Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law, University of Manchester, United Kingdom
– Unlockning and Inspiring the Interdisciplinary Intellectual Property and Sustainability Discourse, Janice Denoncourt. Associate Professor of Law, Nottingham Law School, United Kingdom
3- IP Teaching methods and techniques in the forefront
Chair: Vishv Priya Kohli, EIPTN Committee
– Cultivating the art of articles/book reviews in IP law teaching, Giulia Priora, Assistant Professor, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon, Portugal
– Education through Communication. Tools for Effective Learning and Awareness Raising of the Intellectual Property Law Principles, Anna Labedzka, Senior Lecturer in Law, Kingston University, London, UK
– Bridging the Gap: Teaching IP to Non-Lawyers in Economics and Management, Giulia Dore, Assistant professor, Department of Economics and Management, Trento University, Italy
16:00 – 16:45 Coffee break and special keynote speech on Supporting Research for promoting the IP culture at Universities: The experience of 4iP Council in Supporting Research for promoting the IP culture at Universities, Axel Ferrazzini, General Manager, 4iP Council for Europe, Brussels
16:45 – 18:00
3- IP Teaching methods and techniques in the forefront (cont’d)
Chair: Yolanda Bergel Sainz de Baranda, EIPTN Committee
– Innovation in teaching IP & competition: The Innovator´s Legal Aid Clinic, a case study, Kalpana Tyagi, Assistant Professor, Managing Coordinator The Innovator’s Legal Aid Clinic, Maastricht Faculty of Law, Netherlands
– Ethical AI in IP: Developing a Global Cross-Disciplinary Curriculum for Responsible Innovation, Murtaza Mohiqi Assistant Professor, Department of Law, University of Agder, Norway
– From Theory to Practice: Transforming Students into Project Managers and Legal Experts With the Help of Artificial Intelligence, François Wéry and Vincent Cassiers, Lecturers, UCLouvain, Belgium
Networking dinner for Speakers and EIPTN Committee
DAY 2
Saturday, 05 October 2024
Morning Session
10:00-11:15
4- Re-visiting IP for excellence in teaching
Chair: Laurent Manderieux, EIPTN Committee
– From “novatio to in-novation” to “in-novatio to novatio”: An instrumental paradigm change and a change of paradigm, Manuel Desantes Real, Full Professor, University of Alicante, Spain, former Vice-President of the EPO
– From Reselling to Repairing, from Upcycling to Recycling: Quo Vadis Intellectual Property for a Sustainable and Circular Economy? Irene Calboli, Regents Professor of Law at Texas A&M University, Visiting Professor, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy, Academic Fellow, University of Geneva, Switzerland
– Ethical AI in IP: Developing a Global Cross-Disciplinary Curriculum for Responsible Innovation, Murtaza Mohiqi Assistant Professor, Department of Law, University of Agder, Norway
11:15 – 11:30: Coffee break
11:30 – 13:00 Special Session: IP Public Authorities and IP Teaching in Universities
Chair: Laurent Manderieux, EIPTN Committee
– Supporting Academics for online and in presence activities: EUIPO’s Academy’s Experience, Claire Duranton, Head of service Learning resources and tools, EUIPO Academy, Alicante
– A transatlantic perspective on IP Teaching, Gabriele Gagliani, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of the Regional Intellectual Property Attaché for Europe, U.S. Mission to the EU, Brussels
– Are IP Public Authorities close enough to IP Teaching in Universities? A Special Contribution to the Debate by the Hosting Institution: Alain Strowel, Professor, UCLouvain, Belgium
13:00 – 14:30: Lunch break
Afternoon Session
14:30 – 16:00
4- Re-visiting IP for excellence in teaching (cont’d)
Chair: Nicolas Binctin, EIPTN Committee
– Teaching Patent Law applied to Medical Innovation: The example of Monoclonal Antibodies, Thibault Gisclard, Law Lecturer, D.U. Director, Lille University, France
–Where the IP teaching meets the road: One IP teachers experience in applying IP teaching methodology to writing new IP laws in B&H, writing the official Bosnia and Herzegovina Judicial IP Bench Book and what lessons this might have for inside the classroom, Haris Hasić, Associate Professor and Vice Dean for Scientific Research and Development, University of Travnik Faculty of Law, Bosnia and Herzegovina
– Utilizing AI to foster legal reasoning in introductory level, Andrea Valdo Mocchi, Academic Fellow, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy
15:45 – 16:00 Coffee break
5- EIPTN 2024 Open Committee Meeting: the Way Forward for EIPTN
16:00 – 17:30
Closing remarks:
17:30 – 17:45
Laurent Manderieux, Chair, EIPTN and Alain Strowel, UCLouvain
Closing dinner for Speakers and EIPTN Committee
—-
Read Below Our Call for Abstracts for
EIPTN 16th Worldwide Annual Conference
Brussels (UCLouvain), 04–05 October 2024
Inspiration and IP: Inspiration in IP
Call for Abstracts for our 2024 Conference in Brussels (UCL)
EIPTN 16th Worldwide Annual Conference
Brussels (UCLouvain), 04–05 October 2024
Inspiration and IP: Inspiration in IP
Dear Intellectual Property Academic,
You are cordially invited to participate in the 16th-anniversary conference of the European Intellectual Property Teachers’ Network (EIPTN), to be held in Brussels on 04-05 October 2024 under the Auspices of UCLouvain at the Saint-Louis Brussels city center campus.
| About EIPTN
EIPTN is multi-disciplinary in focus and aims to bring together intellectual property law (IP) teachers from across Europe to exchange ideas on best practices in IP teaching and learning activities. In particular, EIPTN aims to raise awareness and disseminate information relating to:
The European Patent Academy of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Academy of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) support the EIPTN Annual Conference since 2007. |
Conference 2024: again this year with face-to-face format
Our 2024 Annual Conference will be hosted (face-to-face format) at the premises in Brussels of UCLouvain (Saint-Louis Brussels city center campus), close to major transport hubs.
16th Anniversary Theme – Inspiration and IP: Inspiration in IP
In the IP teaching and research community in Europe, there is a reviving interest in improving IP teaching, a topic sometimes neglected in the past by academics under pressure to deliver research results. Furthermore, the area of IP pedagogical research is becoming more widely recognized. As a result, both academic research and pedagogical research are fueling quality in IP Teaching.
Teaching techniques are rapidly evolving, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exponentially accelerated existing trends of massive use of technological tools in teaching. At the same time, questions connected to Inspiration in IP and Inspiration and IP are gaining in importance: issues connected to origins of new knowledge, sharing knowledge, knowledge mills, COIL, ethics, human inspiration vs. “machine inspiration” and vv, versus copying and plagiarism, lead to many issues, questions and debates essential to IP Academics. Therefore, the central theme of the 16th Anniversary of our Network is – Inspiration and IP: Inspiration in IP – Academic and pedagogical research as a support to teaching.
Focus of our Call for Abstracts
Since the start of the COVID19 pandemic in 2020, the IP Teaching Agenda was profoundly re-shaped by the emergence of online/distant/remote teaching, that led soon to new, thrilling, sharing opportunities and issues.
This evolution raises considerable interest and questions in the IP teaching community. Hence, this year our Call for Abstracts focuses on recent substantive publications, or teaching programs and pedagogic methods introduced by IP academics on:
- a- substantive IP issues in general on Inspiration and Sharing in Intellectual Property that effectively contribute to enhancing quality and/or new channels in IP Teaching;
- b- substantive IP issues that relate to COIL Programs and effectively contribute to enhancing quality and/or new channels in IP Teaching
- c- substantive IP issues that consider Artificial Intelligence, and Inspiration in Intellectual Property and effectively contribute to enhancing quality and/or new channels in IP Teaching
- d- substantive IP issues that consider Inspiration and Ethics in Sharing and Intellectual Property and effectively contribute to enhancing quality and/or new channels in IP Teaching
- e- substantive IP issues that consider Sharing, Copying and Plagiarism and effectively contribute to enhancing quality and/or new channels in IP Teaching
Abstracts selection priorities
Given the informal nature of the conference, we do not expect selected speakers to prepare a full paper to present at the conference. Instead, we are issuing this call for proposals asking participants to give 20-minute presentations (plus Q&A) on issues relating to IP teaching experiences. We would encourage you to provide feedback from the students or evidence of any impact on teaching outcomes due to the issues discussed. Examples of presentations given at the Annual Conferences in previous years can be found on the EIPTN website at www.eiptn.eu.
Please note that, as per traditional practice at our Annual Conferences, the EPO and EUIPO will also be invited to hold a ‘best practice’ session devoted to illustrating and discussing the IP teaching materials they have developed, in particular online publications and tools that facilitate the work of Academics.
How to get involved in the 2024 EIPTN Annual Conference
The working language of the Annual Conference is English.
If you would like to participate in the EIPTN 16th Anniversary Conference 2024 by giving a short presentation on one of the above items, please send the title of your proposed presentation and a 500-word abstract to info@eiptn.eu.
The deadline to send abstracts is 31 May 2024. The EIPTN Committee will then select abstracts based on their innovative character and potential contribution to the teaching of IP.
Under its traditionally dynamic orientations, EIPTN wishes to enlarge and extend its membership basis. To this end, contributions are encouraged not only from European IP teachers but also from young IP researchers and from public organizations engaged in IP teaching activities. In this respect, non-EIPTN members are welcome. One or more special sessions may be dedicated to their presentations.
Financial Support for presenters of Selected Abstracts
Presenters of Selected Abstracts will receive financial support for travel to /from Brussels and accommodation there for a maximum of Euro €500, upon presentation of expenses documentation. Only one presenter per selected abstract is eligible for such support.
Special Session for Attending Young Academics
4 selected Young Academics will participate to a dedicated session aiming at sharing their new teaching ideas and challenges they are facing. Applicants to this Session must possess
– a University IP teaching experience
– this experience must be not superior to 3 years
Selected candidates will receive financial support for travel to /from Brussels and accommodation there for a maximum of Euro €500, upon presentation of expenses documentation. Interested Young Academics are invited to send their CV with a motivation letter to info@eiptn.eu , for review and selection.
Other Conference Delegates
We welcome delegates who are IP teachers and IP professionals (e.g. patent and trademark attorneys, technology transfer offices staff, scientific researchers) to attend EIPTN 2024 without giving a presentation: they will get full access to our debates and will only pay for social program activities. Please contact info@eiptn.eu.
2024 EIPTN Annual Conference Programme
Notification of the programme of the annual Conference and further details about how to register for the event if you are not a speaker will be sent once all abstracts are selected. SAVE THE DATE: We confirm that the “formal” Annual Conference will take place on 04-05 October 2024.
Social programme and Support to Participants
The Organizing Committee intends to organize a full social Programme and Study Activities throughout the 2024 Conference. It will propose a list of Brussels city center accommodations conveniently located for presenters of selected abstracts and other participants, possibly with negotiated discounts.
Publication of Conference Papers
Details on possible publication opportunities will be given once abstracts are selected and depending on the quality of both abstracts and presentations.
Grow our EIPTN network!
If you know of any IP teacher or young IP researcher involved in teaching activities who would like to become a member of our network, please do not hesitate to pass on this message. We look forward to receiving your abstracts by 31 May 2024and hope to see many of you at the Annual Conference on 04-05 October 2024.
Best wishes,
The EIPTN Organizing Committee