Speaker: Professor Madhavi Sunder, Georgetown University Law School

Abstract: Innovation thrives on borrowing from creators, past and far-flung. When does cultural exchange cross the line into cultural misappropriation or theft decried as “cultural appropriation”? Notably, today’s culture wars increasingly turn on intellectual property claims, with calls for attending to the legal and ethical implications of dominant cultural creators taking and profiting from the innovations of disadvantaged and minority creators. Black creators embark on a #TikTokStrike to protest white influencers siphoning credit and revenues from black creatives. The Mexican Culture Minister calls out high end fashion labels for stealing local designs. Black dancers sue blockbuster video game Fortnite for copying dance moves without credit or royalties. Native activists challenge racist trademarks. The implication is clear: intellectual property has a cultural appropriation problem. Is intellectual property an appropriate legal tool for addressing cultural appropriation? This Lecture builds on growing scholarship studying dispossession and racial capitalism to consider intellectual property’s role in promoting or stifling recognition and redistribution for diverse creators.

Biography: Madhavi Sunder is the Frank Sherry Professor of Intellectual Property Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. She is a widely published and influential scholar of intellectual property law, law and technology, women’s human rights, and international development. In 2024-2025, she is the Co-director of the Center for Transnational Legal Studies in London.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Margo Bagley, Emory University School of Law

Abstract: 2024 was a year for multilateral IP like no other. WIPO Member states adopted two new treaties last year: the WIPO Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty. Both were groundbreaking in their mention of one or more of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and indigenous peoples and local communities, none of which are standard IP topics and all of which have been controversial additions to the normative work at WIPO. Moreover, both treaties address disclosure of origin for one or more of these controversial areas, another first for a WIPO treaty. I will discuss how these two treaties came to fruition and their ramifications for future multilateral IP treaty-making.

Biography: Margo A. Bagley is Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law. She returned to Emory in 2016 after ten years at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she held the Hardy Cross Dillard chair. She was the Hieken Visiting Professor in Patent Law at Harvard Law School in Fall 2022. Her scholarship focuses on comparative issues relating to patents and biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and access to medicines, and IP and social justice issues. Professor Bagley served on two National Academies Committees on IP matters, is a technical expert to the African Union in World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) matters, and has served as a consultant to several United Nations organizations. She has served as a US Department of Commerce Commercial Law Development Program advisor and currently serves as a member of the U.S. DARPA ELSI Team for the BRACE project. She is an elected member of the American Law Institute and a faculty lecturer with the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, and also has taught patent related courses in China, Cuba, Israel, and Singapore. She has published numerous articles, book chapters, and monographs as well as two books with co-authors with a third on the way. She is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, practiced patent law with both Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, and Smith, Gambrell and Russell, and has been an expert witness in several patent cases. A chemical engineer by training, Professor Bagley worked in industry for several years before attending law school at Emory where she was a Woodruff Fellow. She is a co-inventor on patents on peanut butter and bedding technology.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Stuart Baran is a barrister at specialist intellectual property chambers Three New Square IP

Abstract: The UK Supreme Court has now given its long (and long-awaited) judgment in SkyKick v. Sky. It concerns the appropriate specification of goods and services as part of a trade mark application. In particular, the UKSC was asked to consider the circumstances in which a party applying for a specification broader than its intended commercial activities can be found to have applied in bad faith. The UKSC reversed the Court of Appeal on the approach in law, finding that Sky’s trade mark registrations had been sought partly in bad faith, and should be partially invalidated. The Court found infringement of the remaining specification by one of SkyKick’s products, but upheld the Court of Appeal’s finding that there was no infringement by the other. It also found that it enjoyed a continuing jurisdiction to grant EU-wide relief given that these proceedings started before Brexit. Here I will focus on the part of the judgment about invalidity for bad faith. I will introduce what the Court has decided and its reasons, and then look at three questions: (i) to what extent does this judgment advance the law of invalidity for applying in bad faith?; (ii) is there now a difference between the extent of goods/services for which you can register your mark, and those for which you can enforce it?; and (iii) is this judgment likely to change applicants’ approach to drafting their specifications?

Biography: Dr Stuart Baran is a barrister at specialist intellectual property chambers Three New Square IP. After a degree in chemistry and doctorate in chemical physics, each at Oxford, he was called to the Bar in 2011 and has practised from Three New Square ever since, in all areas of IP but with particular emphases on trade marks and patents. Stuart was lucky to chair the Oxford International IP Moot for several years, starting during his DPhil. As a barrister, Stuart has appeared unled in every IP forum, from the UKIPO and European Patent Office to the EU General Court and Court of Justice as well as the UK High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. He has been involved in a number of seminal cases across the IP spectrum, including Actavis v. Lilly, Newron v. Comptroller-General, Sky v. SkyKick, and Thaler v. Comptroller-General. Alongside his private practice, Stuart is Standing Counsel to the Comptroller-General which means he represents and advises the UKIPO and government departments on intellectual property issues. He was awarded Legal 500 Junior of the Year for IP in 2018; Managing IP Junior of the Year in 2021 and 2024; and was profiled as a JUVE Patent “One to Watch” in 2023. Outside of work he is a keen orchestral violinist, cook and Italophile.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Henry Pearce, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Portsmouth and Deputy Editor for Computer Law & Security Review

Abstract: This presentation examines the impact of Brexit on UK data protection law and, using the introduction of the now-defunct Data Protection and Digital Information Bill as a case study, critiques the ongoing reliance on personal data as the core concept underlying UK data protection law and policy. As an alternative, the presentation explores the possibility of a harm-based approach to data protection, which would shift the law’s focus away from the concept of personal data to the notion of information harms. It is contended that an approach in this vein could help to address some of the semantic and practical challenges inherent in the current personal data-based approach and could provide a more sustainable foundation for data protection law moving forward.

Biography: Dr Henry Pearce is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Portsmouth. He joined the University in November 2018, having previously been lecturer in law at the University of Hertfordshire from July 2015, and tutor in law at the University of Southampton from December 2012 until June 2015. He is Deputy Editor for Computer Law & Security Review (CLSR) and provides data protection consultancy services to a number of firms based in London and the South of the UK. His research primarily focuses on data protection law and policy, and law and emerging technologies.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Kalpana Tyagi, Assistant Professor, Maastricht University

Abstract: Data protection, privacy and copyright may be closely aligned, yet distinctly respond to the common element, that is data – comprising of personal as well as non-personal elements. While data may not be copyright-protected, works (at least in their current form) are copyright-protected. As the Generative AI tools become more advanced, data and copyright-protected works may cease to bear any direct resemblance to pre-existing works. This can be attributed to the rise of synthetic data. While synthetic data may facilitate compliance with the 2016 EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it also heralds notable challenges for the current IPR (particularly copyright) framework. This interplay between law and technology - in light of its inter- & intra-disciplinary complexity - remains under-explored in the literature. At the CIPIL seminar, Dr. Tyagi presents her research findings on this interplay between copyright (and other IPRs) as well as data protection and privacy in the context of synthetic data and Generative AI.

Biography: Kalpana Tyagi is Assistant Professor of Intellectual Property and Competition Law in the European and International Law Department, Maastricht University. She holds a multidisciplinary PhD (summa cum laude) from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich where she worked as Max Planck Fellow for Innovation and Competition until 2015. She also holds a bachelor’s degree in marketing and business strategy (I division) from College of Business Studies, New Delhi (2002), a bachelor’s degree in law (I division) from the Department of Law, New Delhi, an LLM degree in International Business Laws (I division) from Singapore and China (2009) and a specialized master in European Law and Economics (magna cum laude) from University of Hamburg, Bologna and Ghent (2012). Her main areas of interest relate to the interface of intellectual property rights and competition law, particularly in the context of digitalization.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Professor Ruth Okediji, Jeremiah Smith Jr., Professor of Law, Harvard Law School and Co-Director of the Berkman Klein Center

Abstract: The conclusion of the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in 1994 sparked a quiet revolution in the global IP system by directing unprecedented scrutiny to the maldistribution of innovation benefits among countries and communities, including Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge. The unauthorized access, use, and commercialization of biological resources raised specific questions about the malleability of acquisitive processes for patents, designs, and trademarks, and galvanized soft and hard law instruments recognizing interests in traditional knowledge and genetic resources that are in tension with dominant IP justifications. This lecture examines the recently concluded WIPO genetic resources treaty - the first formal attempt to overlay Indigenous people’s concerns on the system of global IP rights and administration. The lecture will explore prospects for structural change in IP governance based on the treaty’s design and highlight its implications for IP harmonization that differ starkly from the vision codified in the TRIPS Agreement. Those implications threaten prospects for the equitable allocation of benefits between Indigenous People’s knowledge and other stakeholders in the international IP regime.

Biography: Ruth L. Okediji is the Jeremiah Smith. Jr, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Co-Director of the Berkman Klein Center. A renowned scholar in international intellectual property (IP) law and a foremost authority on the role of intellectual property in social and economic development, Professor Okediji has advised inter-governmental organizations, regional economic communities, and national governments on a range of matters related to technology, innovation policy, and development. Her widely cited scholarship on IP and development has influenced government policies in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, and South America. Her ideas have helped shape national strategies for the implementation of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). She works closely with several United Nations agencies, research centers, and international organizations on the human development effects of international IP policy, including access to knowledge, access to essential medicines and issues related to indigenous innovation systems.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Dr Oliver Butler, University of Nottingham

Abstract: When automated decision-making technologies (ADM) are procured and used by public authorities, important design and implementation decisions are often delegated to the professional developers they sub-contract to co-produce such technology. This can undermine accountability, democratic oversight, and the allocation of public functions determined by legislative bodies. On the other hand, in some circumstances officials might appropriately defer to the expertise of developers. This presentation considers how the concept of non-delegation in public law could be reassessed in this context to improve accountable official decision-making and the proper retention of decision-making authority where ADM is co-produced for public purposes.

Biography: Oliver Butler is an Assistant Professor at Nottingham University School of Law. He read law at the University of Cambridge and received a Distinction on the BCL at the University of Oxford, where he received the Faculty Prize in Constitutional Theory. He graduated from the LLM at Harvard Law School and was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2013. He worked at the Law Commission of England and Wales as a research assistant on the Data Sharing between Public Bodies project before returning to Cambridge to undertake his PhD on the development of information law in the UK and Europe. He was Fellow at Wadham College, Oxford, jointly with a research fellowship at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights and has taught constitutional, administrative and human rights law on the BA and BCL and researched emerging digital rights.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'.

This session:

Session 4 – Reforming Data Protection – Enforcement Perspectives

• Chair: Dr Jennifer Cobbe, CIPIL
• Dr Orla Lynskey, London School of Economics
• Dr Johnny Ryan, Irish Council for Civil Liberties
• Dr Luca Tosoni, Norwegian Data Protection Authority
• Professor Gloria Gonzalez Fuster, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

For full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024