Peter R. Slowinski, J.S.M. (Stanford)

Doktorand und wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter

Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht

+49 89 24246-431
peter.slowinski(at)ip.mpg.de

Arbeitsbereiche:

Immaterialgüterrecht (insb. Patentrecht), Recht des unlauteren Wettbewerbs, Lizenzvertragsrecht, Bürgerliches Recht, Zivilprozessrecht und alternative Konfliktbearbeitung (insb. Mediation)

Wissenschaftlicher Werdegang

Seit 2010
Promotion an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München bei Prof. Dr. Reto M. Hilty
Thema: Dysfunktionale Effekte der Durchsetzung von Immaterialgüterrechten

2014 - 2016
Rechtsanwalt im Bereich Patentprozessführung und Patentlizenzrecht in einer internationalen Wirtschaftskanzlei in München

2013 - 2014
Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb

2012 - 2013
Stipendiat am Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb

2011 - 2012
Postgraduiertes Studium der Rechtswissenschaften an der Stanford University, Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA (Master of the Science of Law, J.S.M.)

Fellow im Rahmen des Stanford Program in International Legal Studies (SPILS) an der Stanford Law School, Stanford

Research Assistant im Rahmen des Projekts „Future of the Legal Profession“ unter der Leitung von Frau Professor Deborah Hensler an der Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA

2010 - 2011
Stipendiat am Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb

2009
Zweites Juristisches Staatsexamen, München, Deutschland

2007 - 2009
Referendariat im Bezirk des Oberlandesgerichts München

2007
Erstes Juristisches Staatsexamen, München, Deutschland

2004 - 2007
Studium der Rechtswissenschaften, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Deutschland

2003 - 2004
Studienaufenthalt an der Cardiff University (Diploma in Legal Studies), Abschlussarbeit zur Patentierbarkeit computerimplementierter Erfindungen, Cardiff, UK

2001 - 2003
Studium der Rechtswissenschaften, Universität Passau, Passau, Deutschland

Ehrungen, wissenschaftliche Preise, Stipendien

John Hart Ely Prize der Stanford Law School for Outstanding Performance in ADR Policy Practice and Law

Promotionsstipendium des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb

Studienstipendium der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung

Erasmus-Förderung der Europäischen Union für den Studienaufenthalt an der Cardiff University

Mitgliedschaften

Deutsche Vereinigung für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR)

Centrale für Mediation

Munich IP Dispute Resolution Forum (IPDR)

International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP)

 

Publikationen

Beiträge in Sammelwerken, Kommentierungen, Handbüchern und Lexika

Artificial Intelligence, Novelty and Inventive Step: What Is the Impact of AI on Patent Law?, in: Rafal Sikorski, Zaneta Zemla-Pacud (Hg.), Patents as an Incentive for Innovation, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2021.

    Rethinking Software Protection, in: Jyh-An Lee, Reto M. Hilty, Kung-Chung Liu (Hg.), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2021.

    • The core of artificial intelligence (AI) applications is software of one sort or another. Of course, if software were a mere ingredient, we may have had AI applications already decades ago. After all, it was Allen Touring who in the 1950s developed the first test for AI and concepts surrounding it. But while available data and computing power are important for the recent quantum leap in AI, there would not be any AI without computer programs or software. Therefore, the rise in importance of AI forces us to take — once again — a closer look at software protection through intellectual property (IP) rights, but it also offers us a chance to rethink this protection, and while perhaps not undoing the mistakes of the past, to at least adapt the protection so as not to increase the dysfunctionality that we have come to see in this area of law for the past decades. To be able to establish the best possible way to protect — or not to protect — the software in AI applications, this chapter starts with a short technical description of what AI is, and readers are referred to other chapters in this book for a deeper analysis (1). It continues by identifying those parts of AI applications that constitute software to which legal software protection regimes may be applicable (2), before outlining those protection regimes, namely copyright and patents (3). The core part of the chapter analyses potential issues regarding software protection with respect to AI using specific examples from the fields of evolutionary algorithms and of machine learning (4). Finally, the chapter draws some conclusions regarding the future development of IP regimes with respect to AI (5).
    • Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 20-17

    Section 6.4 - Further instruments to protect the results of clinical research - Summary, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 88.

      Chapter 6 - Further instruments to protect the results of clinical research, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 80 - 88 (gemeinsam mit Axel Walz).

        Chapter 19 - SPCs for plant protection products, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 471 - 481 (gemeinsam mit Roberto Romandini).

          Chapter 17 - Paediatric extensions, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 386 - 398.

            Chapter 16 - Duration of the SPC (Art. 13 Reg. 469/2009), in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 377 - 385 (gemeinsam mit Fabian Gaessler, Dennis Byrski).

              Chapter 15 - The rights conferred by the SPC and its limitations (Art. 5 Reg. 469/2009), in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 301 - 376 (gemeinsam mit Roberto Romandini et al.).

                Chapter 8 - The Effectiveness of the SPC System in the EU, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (Hg.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 106 - 130 (gemeinsam mit Roberto Romandini, Victoria Rivas).

                  Kapitel 3.3 - Spezifische Fehlstellungen mit Bezug auf den Binnenmarkt, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (Hg.), Europäisches Immaterialgüterrecht - Funktionen und Perspektiven (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 26), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2018, 451 - 663 (gemeinsam mit Seyavash Amini et al.). DOI

                    Patenting Coffee - IP Protection and Its Impact on Innovation in the Coffee-Capsule Market, in: Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation (Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, 3), Springer, Berlin 2014, 489 - 503 (gemeinsam mit Reto M. Hilty). DOI

                    • Despite a hard to kill belief patents are not a booster for innovation per se but an instrument of competition and innovation policy that needs to be used in a careful manner and with a clear understanding of its functioning and consequences. In the last decades discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of the patenting system have circulated mostly around pharmaceuticals or the information technology. Some of the most important questions addressed in these discussions are the ever rising and unmanageably large number of patents, a phenomenon known as patent thickets, the overlapping of different intellectual property rights, and in consequence the limitation of necessary competition.

                    Aufsätze

                    The Data Sharing Economy: On the Emergence of New Intermediaries, IIC 50, 1 (2019), 4 - 29 (gemeinsam mit Heiko Richter). DOI

                    • Data-driven markets depend on access to data as a resource for products and services. Since the quality of information that can be drawn from data increases with the available amount and quality of the data, businesses involved in the data economy have a great interest in accessing data from other market players. However, companies still appear to be reluctant to share their data. Therefore, the key question is how data sharing can be incentivized. This article focuses on data sharing platforms, which are emerging as new intermediaries and can play a vital role in the data economy, as they may increase willingness to share data. By comparing data sharing to the exchange of patents based on the FRAND principles, this article suggests a possible way for self-regulation to provide more transparency and fairness in the growing markets for data sharing.

                    Study Question 2017 – Quantification of monetary relief, GRUR Int 66, 8-9 (2017), 737 - 744 (gemeinsam mit Clemens Heusch et al.).

                      Standardessentielle Patente – Perspektiven außerhalb des Kartellrechts, GRUR Int 64, 9 (2015), 781 - 792 (gemeinsam mit Reto M. Hilty).

                        Entscheidungsanmerkungen

                        Comment on the German Federal Supreme Court Decision "Raltegravir" - Patent Act, Secs. 24, 85(1), IIC 49, 1 (2018), 125 - 130. DOI

                          Case Note on: "United Video Properties", IIC 48, 3 (2017), 373 - 377. DOI

                            Perlentaucher/FAZ, Comment on the decision by the German Federal Supreme Court, IIC 42, 8 (2011), 989 - 992.

                              Tagungs- und Diskussionsberichte

                              Declaration on Patent Protection: Regulatory Sovereignty under TRIPS – Bericht zum Workshop in Berlin am 11. und 12.7.2017, GRUR Int 67, 1 (2018), 30 - 33.

                              • Event: Workshop zur Patent Declaration, Berlin, 2017-07-11

                              Forschungspapiere

                              Covid-19 and the Role of Intellectual Property: Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 7 May 2021 (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 21-13), 2021, 15 S. (gemeinsam mit Reto M. Hilty et al.).

                              • In this Statement, the authors take a position on the waiver of intellectual property (IP) protection currently being considered by the members of the World Trade Organisation. The waiver was initiated by India and South Africa as a measure to enable rapid access to affordable medical products that are necessary to combat Covid-19. The initiative gained momentum after the US decided to support it. The authors do not consider this path to be expedient. The Statement presents factual and legal arguments why a comprehensive waiver of IP protection is unlikely to be a necessary and suitable measure towards the pursued objective. Overall, it argues that IP rights may so far have played an enabling and facilitating rather than hindering role in overcoming Covid-19. The global community might not be better off if IP rights are waived, neither during nor after the pandemic. There are more efficient and direct ways to supply developing countries with vaccines quickly – if the industrialised countries are willing to do their share.
                              • Available at SSRN

                              Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the Current Debate (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 21-10), 2021, 26 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

                              • This Position Statement presents a broad overview of issues arising at the intersection of AI and IP law based on the work of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition research group on Regulation of the Digital Economy. While the analysis is approached mainly from a perspective de lege lata, it also identifies questions which require further reflection de lege ferenda supported by in-depth interdisciplinary research. The scope is confined to substantive European IP law, in particular, as regards copyright, patents, designs, databases and trade secrets. Specific AI-related issues are mapped out around the core questions of IP law, namely, the eligibility for protection under the respective IP regimes, allocation of rights and the scope of protection. The structure of the analysis reflects three key components of AI: inputs required for the development of AI systems, AI as a process and the output of AI applications. Overall, it is emphasised that, while recent legal and policy discussions have mostly focused on AI-aided and AI-generated output, a more holistic view that accounts for the role of IP law across the AI innovation cycle is indispensable.
                              • Available at SSRN

                              Position Paper on the Envisaged Reform of the German Patent Act (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 20-05), 2020 (gemeinsam mit Luc Desaunettes-Barbero et al.).

                              • This position paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition provides comments on the amendments proposed by the German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in its discussion draft of January 2020 on the modernization and simplification of the German Patent Act. While the Institute generally welcomes the initiative, the paper offers some suggestions aimed at increasing precision in the areas of first, the concept and the implementation of the proportionality test for granting injunctive relief, and, second, the need for enhanced protection of trade secrets in patent disputes. With regard to the proportionality assessment, the Institute suggests that, rather than reducing it to an application of the principle of good faith, the concept of proportionality should be interpreted and applied in light of the ratio legis of patent protection with a view to preventing dysfunctional effects potentially resulting from the exercise of the exclusive right and the associated claim to an injunction. Scenarios involving complex products, non-practicing entities and standard-essential patents are used to illustrate the approach. As regards the weighing and balancing of interests when assessing proportionality, the position paper argues that it is neither desirable nor appropriate to prioritize the interests of the patentee over those of the infringer as a matter of principle. In addition, it is not only the interests of parties to the dispute, but also those of third parties, in particular the public interest, that should be taken into account. With regard to the protection of trade secrets in patent disputes, the position paper refers to certain procedural insufficiencies of the Trade Secrets Act to adequately protect the defendant’s secrecy interests. It also points out a potential loophole in relation to the 'Düsseldorf proceedings' that may facilitate 'fishing expeditions'.
                              • Available at SSRN
                              • German version at SSRN under the title: Stellungnahme zum Diskussionsentwurf eines zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 16

                              Technical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence: An Understanding from an Intellectual Property Law Perspective (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 19-13), 2019, 15 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

                              • The present Q&A paper aims at providing an overview of artificial intelligence with a special focus on machine learning as a currently predominant subfield thereof. Machine learning-based applications have been discussed intensely in legal scholarship, including in the field of intellectual property law, while many technical aspects remain ambiguous and often cause confusion. This text was drafted by the Research Group on the Regulation of the Digital Economy of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in the pursuit of understanding the fundamental characteristics of artificial intelligence, and machine learning in particular, that could potentially have an impact on intellectual property law. As a background paper, it provides the technological basis for the Group’s ongoing research relating thereto. The current version summarises insights gained from background literature research, interviews with practitioners and a workshop conducted in June 2019 in which experts in the field of artificial intelligence participated.
                              • Available at SSRN

                              Stellungnahmen

                              Stellungnahme zum Diskussionsentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts, 2020, 16 S. (gemeinsam mit Luc Desaunettes-Barbero et al.).

                              • Das Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb nimmt hiermit zum Diskussionsentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts Stellung, der vom Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz im Januar 2020 vorgelegt wurde. Das Institut begrüßt die Initiative des Ministeriums, empfiehlt im Hinblick auf die Beschränkung des patentrechtlichen Unterlassungsanspruchs und die Stärkung des Schutzes von Geschäftsgeheimnissen in Patentstreitsachen jedoch gewisse Präzisierungen. Mit Blick auf die Beschränkung des Unterlassungsanspruchs nach Maßgabe des Grundsatzes der Verhältnismäßigkeit wird vorgeschlagen, die Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung nicht auf einen Anwendungsfall der Gebote von Treu und Glauben zu reduzieren, sondern im Sinne der ratio legis des Patentrechts zu verstehen; insoweit als Maßnahme zur Verhinderung dysfunktionaler Effekte des Ausschließlichkeitsrecht bzw. des damit verbundenen Unterlassungsanspruchs. Zur Veranschaulichung des Ansatzes wird auf die Fallgruppen der komplexen Produkte, der Patentverwerter und der standardessenziellen Patente Bezug genommen, ohne sie jedoch im Detail durchzuprüfen. Mit Blick auf die im Rahmen der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung vorzunehmende Interessenabwägung wird darauf hingewiesen, dass die Interessen des Patentinhabers gegenüber jenen des Verletzers keinen grundsätzlichen Vorrang genießen. Darüber hinaus sind bei der Abwägung nicht nur die Interessen der Streitparteien, sondern auch jene Dritter, insbesondere das öffentliche Interesse, zu berücksichtigen. Mit Blick auf den Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen in Patentstreitsachen verweist die Stellungnahme auf Unzulänglichkeiten des Verfahrens in Geschäftsgeheimnisstreitsachen, die durch die angedachte Anwendung der entsprechenden Vorschriften auf das Patentstreitverfahren übertragen werden. Hingewiesen wird auch auf eine mögliche Regelungslücke in Bezug auf das "Düsseldorfer Verfahren", die von Patentinhabern für sog. "fishing expeditions" ausgenutzt werden könnte.
                              • Stellungnahme_2020-03-1final.pdf
                              • Also published at SSRN as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 16
                              • English version published under the title: Position Paper on the Envisaged Reform of the German Patent Act as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 20-05

                              Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 11 February 2020 on the Draft Issues Paper of the World Intellectual Property Organization on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence, 2020, 9 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

                              Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 26 April 2017 on the European Commission's "Public consultation on Building the European Data Economy", 2017, 13 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

                              • This Position Statement responds to the Communication of 10 January 2017 by which the European Commission launched a public consultation on the future legal framework for data-driven markets that emerge in the course of the current digitization of industrial production and the advent of smart products in which sensors are embedded. In particular, the Position Statement comments the Commission’s ideas on a possible future data producer’s right as a means of promoting access to data. While the Max Plank Institute agrees that there are indeed instances where there is a need to “unlock data”, it rejects a data producer’s right. Rather, the Institute recommends considering more targeted data access rights that would specifically react to situations in which a manufacturer of smart products would otherwise try to reserve related markets for itself. The Max Planck Institute thereby takes inspiration from the data portability right that has already been implemented as part of the Basic Data Protection Regulation. Moreover, general principles on the design of data access regimes are developed. In sum, the Max Planck Institute favours a sector-specific approach to the introduction of a general data access right or a generally applicable data access regime. Sector-specific rules are especially needed for answering more concrete questions such as regarding the person entitled to claim access or the one of whether a data holder should be remunerated for granting access to data.
                              • MPI_Statement_Public_consultation_on_Building_the_EU_Data_Eco_28042017 Copy.pdf
                              • Chinese Translation of the Position Statement
                              • Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-08

                              Interviews

                              Argumente gegen ein Dateneigentum, Radio-Interview, mdr-Aktuell, 26. Juli 2017

                              Vorträge

                              29./29. November 2019

                              Rethinking Software Protection

                              Vortrag im Rahmen der Tagung "Artificial Intelligence & Intellectual Property"

                              Ort: Singapur, Singapur


                              17. Oktober 2019

                              Trade Secrets in Judicial and Mediation Procedures – The tension between openness and secrecy

                              Vortrag am Rechtsinstitut der Polnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften

                              Ort: Warschau, Polen


                              8. Oktober 2018

                              Artificial intelligence, novelty and inventive step. What role does AI play in patent law today?

                              Vortrag im Rahmen der Tagung "Rethinking Patent Law as an Incentive to Innovation" aus Anlass des 100jährigen Jubiläums des polnischen Patentamtes

                              Ort: Warschau, Polen


                              11. März 2018

                              Geistiges Eigentum - Treiber oder Bremsklotz von Innovation?

                              Vortrag bei der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für die Freiheit, Theodor-Heuss-Akademie

                              Ort: Gummersbach, Deutschland


                              12. Februar 2018

                              Do we need a new IP-regime in the new data driven economy?

                              Vortrag im Rahmen der Tagung "Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and Intellectual Property Law - Towards a New Era in Socio-Economic Life and Daily Living of Human Being", Ankara University Research and Application Center on Intellectual and Industrial Rights (FISAUM)

                              Ort: Ankara, Türkei


                              10. November 2017

                              Fields of Self-Regulation and Codes of Conduct

                              Vortrag im Rahmen der Tagung "SEPs, SSO and FRAND - Fostering Innovation in Interconnectivity: Asian and Global Perspectives", Applied Research Centre for Intellectual Assets and the Law in Asia, Singapore Management University

                              Ort: Singapur


                              9. November 2017

                              The Legal Nature of FRAND-declaration - EU-Perspective

                              Vortrag im Rahmen der Tagung "SEPs, SSO and FRAND - Fostering Innovation in Interconnectivity: Asian and Global Perspectives", Applied Research Centre for Intellectual Assets and the Law in Asia, Singapore Management University

                              Ort: Singapur


                              12. November 2015

                              Standard Essential Patents - Beyond Competition Law

                              Vortrag im Rahmen des International Symposium on Legal Reforms in Standard Essential, Patents, Intellectual Property Law Center, School of Law Tsinghua University

                              Ort: Peking, China


                              14. Oktober 2015

                              The New European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court

                              Vortrag an der University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law

                              Ort: Tuscon, Arizona, USA


                              5. November 2014

                              The New European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court

                              Ort: Palo Alto, USA


                              3. November 2014

                              The New European Unified Patent Court

                              Ort: Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA


                              13. April 2013

                              Still in Balance? - Perspectives on the Present State and Future Development of IP Enforcement

                              9th Inter-University Graduate Student Conference

                              Ort: Cornell Law School, Ithaca, New York, USA


                              18. Mai 2012

                              Patent Mediation in Germany - Results From the First Empirical Study

                              International Empirical Research Forum

                              Ort: Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA


                              14. April 2012

                              Evaluation of Patent Mediation

                              8th Inter-University Graduate Student Conference

                              Ort: Cornell Law School, Ithaca, New York, USA


                              27. Mai 2010

                              Enforcing Quality - New Ways of Strengthening the IP-Systems in Europe

                              3rd WIPO-Seminar on Intellectual Property and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

                              Ort: Genf, Schweiz

                              Lehrveranstaltungen

                              20./21. Juli 2017

                              IP and ADR - Policy Considerations and Practice Issues
                              Vorlesung für LL.M.-Studenten am Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC)
                              Ort: München, Deutschland


                              2. November 2016

                              Global Patent Litigation
                              Gastdozent im Rahmen der Vorlesung „Global Litigation“ von Frau Professor Deborah Hensler
                              Ort: Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA