Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Podcast

Speaker: Professor Lilian Edwards, Emeritus Professor of Law, Innovation & Society, Newcastle Law School Biography: Lilian Edwards is a leading academic in the field of Internet law. She has taught information technology law, e-commerce law, privacy law and Internet law at undergraduate and postgraduate level since 1996 and been involved with law and artificial intelligence (AI) since 1985. She is now Emerita Professor at Newcastle and Honorary Professor at CREAte, University of Glasgow, which she helped co-found. She is the editor and major author of Law, Policy and the Internet, one of the leading textbooks in the field of Internet law (Hart, 2018, new edition forthcoming with Urquhart and Goanta, 2026). She won the Future of Privacy Forum award in 2019 for best paper ("Slave to the Algorithm" with Michael Veale) and the award for best non-technical paper at FAccT in 2020, on automated hiring. In 2004 she won the Barbara Wellberry Memorial Prize in 2004 for work on online privacy where she invented the notion of data trusts, a concept which ten years later has been proposed in EU legislation. She is a former fellow of the Alan Turing Institute on Law and AI, and the Institute for the Future of Work. Edwards has consulted for inter alia the EU Commission, the OECD, and WIPO.Abstract: The right to an explanation is having another moment. Well after the heyday of 2016-2018 when scholars tussled over whether the GDPR ( in either art 22 or arts 13-15) conferred a right to explanation, the CJEU case of Dun and Bradstreet has finally confirmed its existence, and the Platform Work Directive has wholesale revamped art 22 in its Algorithmic Management chapter. Most recently the EU AI Act added its own Frankenstein-like right to an explanation (art 86) of AI systems .None of these provisions however pin down what the essence of the explanation should be, given many notions can be invoked here ; a faithful description of source code or training data; an account that enables challenge or contestation; a “plausible” description that may be appealing in a behaviouralist sense but might be actually misleading when operationalised eg to generate a medical course of treatment. Agarwal et al argue that the tendency of UI designers, and regulators and judges alike to lean towards the plausibility end, may be unsuited to large language models which represent far more of a black box in size and optimisation than conventional machine learning, and which are trained to present encouraging but not always accurate accounts of their workings. Yet this is also the direction of travel taken by CJEU Dun & Bradstreet , above. This paper argues that explanations of large model outputs may present novel challenges needing thoughtful legal mandates.For more information (and to download slides) see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Bhamati Viswanathan, Visitor, Cambridge Law Faculty and Fellow at the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at Columbia Law School Biography: Bhamati Viswanathan is a Senior Visitor at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law and a Fellow (Non-Resident) at the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at Columbia Law School (New York). Prior to joining the Cambridge Faculty of Law, she was Assistant Professor at New England Law | Boston, where she taught copyright law, artificial intelligence and the law, law and the visual arts, intellectual property law, and U.S. Constitutional law. She is the author of “Cultivating Copyright: How Creative Industries Can Harness Intellectual Property to Survive the Digital Age” (Routledge/Taylor & Francis Press). She currently holds an Edison Fellowship from the Intellectual Property Policy Institute at University of Akron Law School, under whose aegis she is writing a series of articles on the disparate impact of copyright law on women creators and women-centric work. She is also planning a book on the nexus of intellectual property and arts/culture in the age of artificial intelligence.Bhamati serves as Chair of the American Bar Association Intellectual Property Section: Visual and Dramatics Works Committee. She is a Faculty Advisor on the Copyright Alliance Academic Advisory Board. She serves as Faculty Partner to the News/Media Alliance. She is Education Advisor to the Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts (VLA)/ Massachusetts Arts and Business Council. She is also a Faculty Advisor to the Journal of the Copyright Society; and she was a Trustee of the Copyright Society, as well as Chair of its New England Chapter. She holds an S.J.D./LL.M. from University of Pennsylvania Law School; a J.D. from University of Michigan Law School; and a B.A. from Williams College. She is a competitive figure skater, violinist, and published poet/translator and lives in Boston.Abstract: The training of generativeAI models on ingested work is a hotly contested area of U.S. copyright law. In this Seminar, I will inquire whether such training may constitute “fair use” under the nonexclusive four-factor test of the U.S. Copyright Act. Currently, courts are wrestling with the fair use defense in several major cases, including Thompson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence; Bartz v. Anthropic; Kadrey v. Meta; and the consolidated litigation of In re: OpenAI.Another open question is whether AI outputs infringe copyright in other works. Here, plaintiffs must establish that AI outputs infringe their works by passing the threshold of the “substantial similarity” test. I will discuss the test in the context of AI litigation, and will suggest that the relatively novel “market dilution” theory, focusing on harm caused by stylistically similar outputs, might be applied to weigh against a fair use defense for GenAI training. I will also address whether the theory of “vicarious liability” might be fruitfully brought to bear against certain genAI companies. Lastly, I will ask what action Congress can, or should, take, with a view to striking a fair balance between meeting the needs of innovative technologies and securing the rights of creative industries and creators. As an example, I will raise a recent proposal (in which I was involved) that Congress explicitly prohibit GenAI training on materials derived from digital repositories of unlicensed materials (so-called “shadow libraries”).For more information (and to download slides) see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Yin Harn Lee, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of BristolBiography: Dr Yin Harn Lee is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol. Her research interests lie primarily in copyright law. A significant part of her research focuses on copyright and videogames, and she is also interested in historical aspects of copyright as well as the interface between intellectual property and personal property.Abstract: The exclusive right to control the copying or reproduction of a work has been described by one leading copyright treatise as ‘the most fundamental, and historically the oldest, right of a copyright owner’. The first British copyright statute, the 1710 Statute of Anne, conferred on rightholders the exclusive right to print and reprint their books. Since then, the right has expanded far beyond its legislative origins, and now encompasses acts of copying in both digital and analogue form, those that are both temporary and permanent, and those that are merely incidental to the use of the work. Scholars have expressed concern about the now-expansive scope of the right, and there have been calls to restrict the right (e.g. by removing ‘non-expressive copying’ and copying that does not enable the use of the material in question ‘as a work’) or to replace it altogether with a broad right of ‘commercial exploitation’.This paper will show that, while these proposals are laudable and inventive, they nevertheless encounter the same pitfalls as those faced by English courts in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when called upon to define the scope of what constitutes ‘copying’. It will argue that the root of the problem lies in the absence of stable, developed principles for defining the legitimate scope of the rightholder’s market, and that attempts at framing this as a question of statutory interpretation only obscure this fundamental fact.For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Andrew Christie, University of MelbourneBiography: Professor Andrew Christie was the foundation appointment to the Chair of Intellectual Property at the University of Melbourne in 2002.He holds BSc and LLB (Hons) degrees from the University of Melbourne, a LLM from the University of London, and a PhD from the University of Cambridge (Emmanuel College). Admitted to legal practice in Australia and the United Kingdom, he has worked in the intellectual property departments of law firms in Melbourne and London. He is a former Fulbright Senior Scholar, and has held research and teaching appointments at the University of Cambridge, Duke University, the National University of Singapore, and the University of Toronto.Awarded 12 Australian Research Council grants and instrumental in winning other research funding in excess of $11 million, he has authored more than 120 publications, and delivered by invitation more than 180 public addresses in 20 countries, across all areas of intellectual property law. He has served on all of the Australian government’s advisory committees on intellectual property – the Copyright Law Review Committee, the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, and the Plant Breeder’s Rights Advisory Committee – and has been an expert advisor to World Intellectual Property Organization on a number of occasions. He currently chairs the Trans-Tasman IP Attorneys Board, the regulator of the Australian and New Zealand patent attorney profession.Abstract: With more than 18 million patents for inventions in force across 140 jurisdictions, patents are a significant area of the law. However, the traditional justifications for having a patent system are incomplete, and do not take full account of developments in economic thinking that recognise the primary purpose of economics is to enhance human wellbeing. The primary purpose of patents should be likewise. There is sparse academic and policy literature on the relevance of wellbeing economics to patent policy, and what exists leaves unanswered many questions about how the patent system can be used to achieve this policy objective. This presentation answers those questions, by tracing the evolution of wellbeing economics, identifying the doctrinal levers available to implement patent policy, and providing practical examples of the application of those levers to ensure the patent system incentivises innovations that advance wellbeing.For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Niva Elkin Koren (Tel Aviv University)Session 4: Concluding Thoughts – AI Transforming IPOn Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Mr Dennis Collopy (University of Hertfordshire)Session 3: AI Transforming the Scope of Protection and EnforcementOn Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Professor Tanya Aplin (King’s College London)Session 3: AI Transforming the Scope of Protection and EnforcementOn Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Professor Sean Flynn (Washington College of Law)Session 3: AI Transforming the Scope of Protection and EnforcementOn Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Professor Mireille van Eechoud (University of Amsterdam)Session 3: AI Transforming the Scope of Protection and EnforcementOn Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Mr David Stone (White & Case LLP)Session 2: AI Transforming IP Application / Registration Processes and Eligibility TestsOn Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Professor Dev Gangjee (University of Oxford)Session 2: AI Transforming IP Application / Registration Processes and Eligibility TestsOn Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Professor Ryan Abbott (University of Surrey)Session 2: AI Transforming IP Application / Registration Processes and Eligibility Tests On Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Dr Alina Trapova (UCL)Session 1: AI Transforming Protected Subject MatterOn Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Professor Mateo Aboy (University of Cambridge)Session 1: AI Transforming Protected Subject MatterOn Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Dr Jennifer Cobbe (University of Cambridge)Introduction: Primer on AI and Creations of the (Human) MindOn Saturday 29th March 2025, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Is AI Transforming IP?'For the last few years, lots of attention has been paid to AI and IP. The Supreme Court has already considered whether AI can be regarded as an inventor. There is also on-going litigation, in various jurisdictions, on whether training AI systems with copyright material infringes copyright, in what circumstances the outputs might infringe; as well as when, if at all, AI-generated content, designs or other outputs might be protected by intellectual property rights and, if so, for whose benefit.While these are important questions that involve the application of the existing understandings of the law to new factual scenarios, the conference moved beyond them to focus on: (i) what AI reveals about existing law; and (ii) how AI might be changing IP, altering the legal tests with which we have become familiar, as well as the assumptions that underlie them – and what the implications might be.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

The eighteenth Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture was delivered by Robert P. Merges, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professor of Law and Technology at UC Berkeley School of Law, on 18 March 2025.The lecture entitled 'Cousins, Not Twins: Patent Claim Scope vs. The Breadth of Patent Enforcement' took place at Emmanuel College, Cambridge.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/

Speaker: Professor Madhavi Sunder, Georgetown University Law SchoolAbstract: 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 IPAbstract: 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 ReviewAbstract: 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