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

Doctoral Student and Junior Research Fellow

Intellectual Property and Competition Law

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

Areas of Interest:

Intellectual Property Law (primarily patent law), unfair competition law, licensing law, civil law, law of civil procedure, litigation and alternative dispute resolution (primarily mediation)

Academic Résumé

Since 2017
Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
In parallel doctoral candidate at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Reto M. Hilty
Topic: Dysfunctional effects of the enforcement of intellectual property rights

2014 - 2016
Attorney at law (Rechtsanwalt) in the areas of patent litigation, IP transactions and patent licensing with an international law firm in Munich

2013 - 2014
Research Fellow at the Max-Planck-Institute for Innovation und Competition

2012 - 2013
Scholarship Holder at the Max-Planck-Institute for Innovation und Competition

2011 - 2012
Postgraduate studies of law at the Stanford University, Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA (Master of the Science of Law, J.S.M.)

Fellow in the Stanford Program in International Legal Studies (SPILS) at the Stanford Law School, Stanford

Research Assistant in the project „Future oft he Legal Profession“ under the supervision of Professor Deborah Hensler at the Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA

2010 - 2011
Scholarship Holder at the Max-Planck-Institute for Innovation und Competition

2009
Second State Exam in Law (equivalent to bar exam), Munich, Germany

2007 - 2009
Mandatory Clerkship/Training in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal Munich, Germany

2007
First State Exam in Law (equivalent to LL.B./J.D.), Munich, Germany

2004 - 2007
Study of Law at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany

2003 - 2004
Study of Law at the Cardiff University (Diploma in Legal Studies), Thesis on the patentability of computer implemented inventions, Cardiff, UK

2001 - 2003
Study of Law at the University Passau, Passau, Germany

Academic Prizes, Honours, Scholarships

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

Doctoral Scholarship by the Max-Planck-Institute for Innovation and Competition

Scholarship by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung

Erasmus-grant of the European Union for the stay at Cardiff University

Memberships

German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR)

Centrale für Mediation

Munich IP Dispute Resolution Forum (IPDR)

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

 

Publications

Contributions to Collected Editions, Commentaries, Handbooks and Encyclopaedias

Artificial Intelligence, Novelty and Inventive Step: What Is the Impact of AI on Patent Law?, in: Rafal Sikorski, Zaneta Zemla-Pacud (eds.), 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 (eds.), 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 (eds.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 88.

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

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

          Chapter 16 - Duration of the SPC (Art. 13 Reg. 469/2009), in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (eds.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 377 - 385 (together with Roberto Romandini et al.).

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

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

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

                  Journal Articles

                  Revisiting the Framework for Compulsory Licensing of Patents in the European Union – Reflections on the European Commission’s Initiative, GRUR Int 72, 5 (2023), 471 - 482 (together with Matthias Lamping et al.). DOI

                  • Within the scope of its initiative on ‘Compulsory Licensing in the EU’,8 the European Commission launched a call for evidence on 1 April 2022 and a public consultation on 7 July 2022 with the aim of gathering views from stakeholders. The objective of this initiative is to explore the possibility of revising the framework for compulsory licensing in the EU to make it more ‘adequately prepared and coordinated to tackle future crises’.9 The authors of this position paper welcome the Commission’s attempt to reinvigorate the public discourse on this important subject.

                    Depending on the issue to be addressed and the extent of the Commission’s willingness to reform, different regulatory approaches are conceivable. Subject to compatibility with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, these include:

                    Rather than making concrete recommendations on the regulatory approach, this paper addresses selected aspects by way of a preliminary, non-exhaustive note on: the proposed reform’s scope and the grounds for a compulsory licence; the requirements of prior negotiation and licensing failure; government use; procedural matters; compulsory licences for patent applications and products; the relation with other regulations and sui generis regimes (i.e. trade secret protection, regulatory data protection and supplementary protection certificates); the concept of adequate remuneration; compulsory licences for European patents with unitary effect; and the exhaustion of products placed on the market under a compulsory licence.

                    – soft law measures, such as guidelines and recommendations;

                    – harmonisation of national laws (substantive and/or procedural);10

                    – judicial cooperation (i.e. mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases);11

                    – centralisation of granting and/or judicial review competences;

                    – creation of a supranational compulsory licence;

                    – or any combination thereof.

                  The Data Sharing Economy: On the Emergence of New Intermediaries, IIC 50, 1 (2019), 4 - 29 (together with 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 (together with Clemens Heusch et al.).

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

                      Case notes

                      Licensing Standard Essential Patents and the German Federal Supreme Court Decisions FRAND Defence I and FRAND Defence II, IIC 52, 10 (2021), 1490 - 1497. DOI

                        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.

                              Conference Reports

                              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

                              Research Papers

                              Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 6 February 2024 on the Commission's Proposal for a Regulation on Standard Essential Patents (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 24-03), 2024, 41 pp. (together with Josef Drexl et al.).

                              New Genomic Techniques and Intellectual Property Law: Challenges and Solutions for the Plant Breeding Sector (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 23-16), 2023, 40 pp. (together with Daria Kim et al.).

                              • On 5 July 2023, the European Commission issued a proposal for the regulation that intends to relax the requirements for marketing authorisation of plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs) in the EU. While NGTs are expected to become more appealing to breeders and farmers, the complexity of the intellectual property (IP) landscape surrounding such techniques and resulting products can have a discouraging effect on innovation. In view of numerous concerns related to IP protection for NGTs and NGT-derived plants, the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition has published a Position Statement with a set of policy recommendations that can facilitate access to and utilisation of IP-protected NGTs in the breeding sector.
                              • Available at SSRN

                              CRISPR/Cas Technology and Innovation: Mapping Patent Law Issues (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 22-06), 2022, 49 pp. (together with Daria Kim et al.).

                              • The paper provides a systematic overview of issues arising at the interface between CRISPR/Cas technology and patent law. In particular, it examines aspects related to the patentability of CRISPR/Cas-based methods of genome editing, on the one hand, and access to patented technologies, in view of the expanding CRISPR patent landscape, on the other hand. On the whole, our findings show that the case of CRISPR/Cas technology is prototypical of the policy dilemma in patent law as to how to balance economic incentives of multiple innovators in a cumulative innovation setting. The reviewed technical, legal and economic factors suggest the preconditions for technology underutilisation. While this paper presents the results of the exploratory phase of research, it sets a framework for the further, more targeted interdisciplinary examination of the identified issues.
                              • Available at SSRN

                              Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 21-20), 2021, 11 pp. (together with Josef Drexl et al.). DOI

                              • On 30 July 2021 the Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision in which it accepted that an artificial intelligence (AI) system called DABUS can be deemed the inventor under Australian patent law. While the decision appears ground-breaking at first sight, it was mostly based on unverified assumptions regarding the technical capabilities of AI systems in general and DABUS in particular. Furthermore, the decision omits important questions regarding the consequences that may follow from attributing inventorship to an entity that lacks legal capacity without undertaking a comprehensive analysis that would justify such attribution. This Position Statement highlights the shortcomings of the decision and points to those factual and legal questions that need to be answered first before recognising AI systems as inventors. While it responds primarily to the decision of the Australian Federal Court, the presented arguments can be of relevance for any jurisdiction dealing with the question of whether an AI system can be deemed an inventor under patent law.

                              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 pp. (together with 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

                              Opinions

                              Revisiting the Framework for Compulsory Licensing of Patents in the European Union, 2023, 27 pp. (together with Matthias Lamping et al.).

                              • Within the scope of its initiative on “Compulsory Licensing in the EU”, the European Commission launched a call for evidence on 1 April 2022 and a public consultation on 7 July 2022 with the aim of gathering views from stakeholders. The objective of this initiative is to explore the possibility of revising the framework for compulsory licensing in the EU to make it more “adequately prepared and coordinated to tackle future crises”. The authors of this position paper welcome the Commission’s attempt to reinvigorate the public discourse on this important subject. This paper addresses selected aspects by way of a preliminary, non-exhaustive note on: the proposed reform’s scope and the grounds for a compulsory licence; the requirements of prior negotiation and licensing failure; government use; procedural matters; compulsory licences for patent applications and products; the relation with other regulations and sui generis regimes (i.e. trade secret protection, regulatory data protection, and supplementary protection certificates); the concept of adequate remuneration; compulsory licences for European patents with unitary effect; and the exhaustion of products placed on the market under a compulsory licence.
                              • Opinion published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 23-07

                              Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide, 2021, 11 pp. (together with Josef Drexl et al.).

                              Covid-19 and the Role of Intellectual Property - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 7 May 2021, 2021, 11 pp. (together with 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.
                              • 2021_05_25_Position_statement_Covid_IP_waiver.pdf
                              • Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-13

                              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, 2021, 26 pp. (together with 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.
                              • MPI_PositionPaper__SSRN_21-10.pdf
                              • Also published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-10

                              Stellungnahme zum Diskussionsentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts, 2020, 16 pp. (together with 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.
                              • 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".
                              • 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 pp. (together with 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 pp. (together with 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

                              Further Publications, Press Articles, Interviews

                              Unpacking AI and Patents with Peter Slowinski: Who's Really Inventing - Human or Machine?, MondAI bAIgel Bytes: Legal Tech & AI Insights with host Michał Jackowski 2023.

                              Modernizing German Patent Law: Toward an Explicit Obligation for Proportionality Control of Injunctions?, Oxford Business Law Blog 2020 12.06.2020 (together with Luc Desaunettes-Barbero et al.).

                                Podcasts

                                Unpacking AI and Patents with Peter Slowinski: Who's Really Inventing - Human or Machine?
                                MondAI bAIgel Bytes: Legal Tech & AI Insights
                                Podcast with host Michał Jackowski

                                Interviews

                                Argumente gegen ein Dateneigentum, Radio-Interview, mdr-Aktuell, 07/26/17

                                Lectures

                                December 4, 2023

                                How Should Standard-Essential Patents (SEP) be Regulated in Europe?

                                Online presentation at the Workshops on Standard Essential Patents by the IPDR University Centre at the Hanken School of Economics

                                Location: Helsinki, Finland


                                November 25, 2023

                                The person skilled in the art of using AI

                                Presentation at the Cyberspace Conference 2023, Masaryk University Brno

                                Ort: Brno, Czech Republic


                                November 8, 2023
                                Key Developments in the European IP Landscape

                                Opening panel during the conference "Auto IP Europe 2023"

                                Location: Munich, Germany


                                September 12, 2023
                                Old Issues with new urgency - Patent Law and Climate Change

                                Presentation during the annual meeting of European Policy for Intellectual Property (EPIP)

                                Location: Krakow, Poland


                                September 7, 2023
                                Covenants not to sue and SEP enforcement in the value chain

                                Presentation during the conference  "Emerging Isssues in licensing and enforcement of SEPs"

                                Location: Warsaw, Poland


                                July 11, 2023
                                Criminal Sanctions and Civil Law Remedies

                                Presentation during the annual conference of the International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP)

                                Location: Tokyo, Japan


                                June 22, 2023
                                The Unitary Patent Court

                                Presentation during the  Jones Day Client Conference 2023

                                Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany


                                November 28/29, 2019

                                Rethinking Software Protection

                                Presentation during the conference "Artificial Intelligence & Intellectual Property", Singapore Management University (SMU)

                                Location: Singapore, Singapore


                                October 17, 2019

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

                                Presentation at during the conference "Trade Secrets in Theory and Practice" at the Law Institute of the Polish Academy of Science

                                Location: Warsaw, Poland


                                Oktober 8, 2018

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

                                Presentation during the conference "Rethinking Patent Law as an Incentive to Innovation" as part of the centenary celebrations of the Polish patent office

                                Location: Warsaw, Poland


                                March 11, 2018

                                Geistiges Eigentum - Treiber oder Bremsklotz von Innovation?

                                Presentation at the Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für die Freiheit, Theodor-Heuss-Akademie

                                Location: Gummersbach, Germany


                                February 12, 2018

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

                                Presentation during the summit on "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)

                                Location: Ankara, Turkey


                                November 10, 2017

                                Fields of Self-Regulation and Codes of Conduct

                                Presentation during the conference "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

                                Location: Singapore


                                November 9, 2017

                                The Legal Nature of FRAND-declaration - EU-Perspective

                                Presentation during the conference "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

                                Location: Singapore


                                November 12, 2015

                                Standard Essential Patents - Beyond Competition Law

                                Presentation during the International Symposium on Legal Reforms in Standard Essential, Patents, Intellectual Property Law Center, School of Law Tsinghua University

                                Location: Beijing, China


                                Oktober 14, 2015

                                The New European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court

                                Presentation at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law

                                Location: Tuscon, Arizona, USA


                                November 5, 2014

                                The New European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court

                                Location: Palo Alto, USA


                                November 3, 2014

                                The New European Unified Patent Court

                                Location: Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA


                                April 13, 2013

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

                                9th Inter-University Graduate Student Conference

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


                                Mai 18, 2012

                                Patent Mediation in Germany - Results From the First Empirical Study

                                International Empirical Research Forum

                                Location: Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA


                                April 14, 2012

                                Evaluation of Patent Mediation

                                8th Inter-University Graduate Student Conference

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


                                Mai 27, 2010

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

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

                                Location: Geneva, Switzerland

                                Courses

                                Academic year 2023/2024

                                Colloquium: Regulation of the Life Sciences
                                Colloquium for LL.M.-students at the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC)
                                Location: Munich, Germany


                                January 16, 2024

                                Legal research in the area of artificial intelligence – questions, challenges and approaches from the perspective of IP law
                                Guest lecture at the Adam Mickiewicz University
                                Location: Poznan, Poland


                                November 2, 2023

                                Global Patent Litigation
                                Guest lecture „Legal Issues of Contracts for Entrepreneurs" by invition from Prof. Liudmyla Petrenko
                                Ort: Kyiv National Economic University, Kiew, Ukraine


                                October 26, 2020

                                When Courts Compete: The Use of Anti-suit Injunctions and Anti-anti-suit Injunctions
                                Guest lecture as part of the lecture „Global Litigation“ by Professor Deborah Hensler
                                Ort: Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA (online)


                                July 20/21, 2017

                                IP and ADR - Policy Considerations and Practice Issues
                                Lecture for LL.M.-students at the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC)
                                Ort: Munich, Deutschland


                                November 2, 2016

                                Global Patent Litigation
                                Guest lecture as part of the lecture „Global Litigation“ by Professor Deborah Hensler
                                Location: Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA