Inaugural QMIPRI Annual Conference

The inaugural annual conference of the Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute (QMIPRI) will take place in London, Monday 18 February 2008.

Intellectual Property Strategies explores the divergent perspectives strategies in use, innovation and access, reflected in the expert panels assembled on each of these concepts.

Speakers include Allan James (Intellectual Property Office), Guido von Scheffer (IP Bewertungs, patent value funds), Tim Hubbard (Sanger Institute) and Michelle Childs (Knowledge Ecology International).

The Conference will take place in the historic New Connaught Rooms, Great Queen St, London, WC2B 5DA. Further information and registration details are available at the Conference website.

Dates for the Diaries - Patenting Lives; EPO Patent Forum; EUPACO-2

A few dates for your patents diaries ...

The Patenting Lives Project is presenting a free lunchtime seminar - "Patenting Lives: GMOs and (Cultural) Co-Existence in Europe" - at the University of Queensland this Friday 13th. Co-hosted by ACIPA and the TC Beirne School of Law, the seminar will run from 12-1pm, Forgan-Smith Building (Room 1-W341). If any of you are in Brisbane it would be great to see you there.

The European Patent Forum will be taking place in Munich, 18-19 April. The Patent Forum will consider the broader context in which the development of patent law takes place: "one of the first attempts to examine intellectual property as a whole, taking into account political, social, ethical, technological, environmental and historical factors". Johanna Gibson will be there following work on the Scenarios for the Future project and Patenting Lives.

Another important event in the discussion of patent policy is EUPACO-2. This next meeting in the series of EUPACO events will be held in Brussels, 15-16 May and the draft programme is now available. EUPACO (the European Patent Conference - "Towards a New Patent System") was conceived by the Foundation for Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), largely in response to the proposed software patents directive. But from this work, EUPACO has developed the debate towards sustainability in the patent system more broadly, with particular attention to the context and framework for policy development in the area of patents. Johanna Gibson was at the earlier meeting (24 January 2007), which was a very successful example of the diverse interests contributing to EUPACO, with a wide range of contributions from various stakeholders, including practitioners and academics, industry and civil society. The forthcoming 2 day meeting in May promises to be an equally stimulating event and a further example of genuine policy debate.

Patenting Lives On the Road!

I will be in Queensland, Australia for the next couple of weeks presenting some free seminars on the Patenting Lives Project.

The first of these will be at Phillips Fox Lawyers (co-hosting the event with Griffith University Law School), Level 29 Waterfront Place, 1 Eagle Street Brisbane. The seminar, looking at patent protection and gene sequences, starts at 5.15pm followed by a drinks reception. Further details are available from Leanne Wiseman of Griffith University on l.wiseman@griffith.edu.au. I hope to see you there!

EUPACO - Brussels 24 January 2007

The European Patent Conference (EUPACO) will be held in Brussels this week, Wednesday 24 January (programme).

The Conference is free and open to all, but registration is advised. Speakers from the US and across Europe (including myself) will present current research, policy, and proposals for reform of the EU patent system.

The EUPACO is an initiative of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), directed at assembling experts and stakeholders from a variety of perspectives for the examination and discussion of patent law in Europe.

FFII is a not-for-profit civil society organisation concerned particularly with information technology and market competition in this sector. In particular, the FFII has been very active in developments concerning the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA). FFII has expressed concerns with these reforms, and has produced the FFII Analysis of the EPLA to set these out.

Although FFII is well known for its contribution to debates on the impact of patent frameworks in software development, the EUPACO will be examining patent frameworks in diverse fields of technology, with a view to comprehensive debate on future patent policy in Europe.

The Brussels meeting will be an opportunity opportunity for individuals from diverse perspectives - including researchers, practitioners, industry and civil society - to examine patent law reform in Europe.

Patenting Lives Free Public Workshop - London

patentingLIVES The second free public workshop in the Patenting Lives series will be held in London, 12th February 2007.

The workshop will deal with the potential overlap of protection for signs as both trade marks and designs. This issue is particularly important because designs give broader protection, while trade marks are potentially protected indefinitely. Therefore, the overlap in rights has generated much concern.

The issue will be addressed by a distinguished panel:

• Tibor Gold MBE, Partner, Kilburn & Strode
• David Musker, Partner, RGC Jenkins & Co
  
• Spyros Maniatis, Professor of Intellectual Property, Queen Mary CCLS

The discussion will be chaired by Simon Malynicz, Intellectual Property Barrister, Hogarth Chambers.

The workshop will be held at 6pm in the Intellectual Property Seminar Room, Charterhouse Square (#1 on the map), and will be followed by drinks.

The workshop is free but numbers are limited, so please register by email to Johanna Gibson. More details are available at Patenting Lives.

The Criminal Enforcement Directive - A Trojan Horse?

patentingLIVES

Last night the Patenting Lives network hosted its first in a series of workshops on current issues in patent law, policy and development.

The first in the series was concerned with the proposed Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights (Criminal Enforcement Directive also known as IPRED2 in view of its amendment this year). One participant described the Directive as the possible "Trojan Horse" that may be used to expand EU competence in the area of criminal justice, moving towards first pillar matters.

Background
The present proposal for IPRED2 is being considered by the European Parliament and the Council at present, as the Directive must be adopted following the co-decision procedure.

In the European Parliament it is presently before the Legal Affairs Committee. The rapporteur, Nicola Zingaretti (an Italian MEP), will present a draft report on the proposed Directive at the next meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee, 20 November 2006. If and when the Committee approves the report, there will be a vote at a plenary session of the European Parliament for its first reading.

Meanwhile, Member States are continuing to negotiate the text before the Council. The most recent Council text includes a number of amendments to the original Commission proposal. But until both the Council and the Parliament have finished the first reading the Directive cannot progress any further. At present, it looks like it might be held up before the Council, even if the Parliament is making progress.

The European Union is structured as "three pillars," - the European Communities, common foreign and security policy, and cooperation in justice and home affairs. Some Member States have indicated that they believe that the measure is not within Community competence as a first pillar instrument. Instead, they suggest that it should be a Framework Decision under the third pillar. It is anticipated that the Court of Justice's ruling in Case C-440/05 Commission v Council (ship source pollution) will give a good indication of whether or not IPRED2 can go forward as a first pillar Directive or will need to revert to being a Framework Decision.

Workshop
Around 35 participants took part in the seminar, which included presentations from Gwilym Roberts, partner at Kilburn & Strode Patent Attorneys; Phillip Johnson, DTI and legal adviser to the UK Patent Office, but speaking in his personal capacity; and Julian Heathcote Hobbins, senior legal counsel for the Federation Against Software Theft (FAST).

All speakers had reservations about the proposed Directive, some stronger than others, including predictions that it would be "completely disastrous."

Gwilym Roberts (pictured at left) very importantly identified not only the way in which it might impact upon patent practice, but also the significant commercial effect of criminalising patent infringement, "changing the game theory of decision-making at the commercial level." Rather than being able to negotiate normal commercial risk, commercial entities would now be constrained in their daily commercial decisions by the threat of criminal sanctions.

As Gwilym explained, copying a CD in large-scale copyright piracy is quite a different concern from the very complicated questions to be considered when trying to determine whether a patent has been "copied." The application of criminal sanctions to all areas of intellectual property simply cannot be justified by the same arguments. He said that the patent system is not designed to implement public health policy (such as the arguments concerned with health risks and counterfeit medicines) and should not be expected to deliver such regulation. Gwilym predicted that the Directive would effect a "significant stifling of innovation."

Julian Heathcote Hobbins (pictured at left) gave a detailed introduction to the activities of FAST and its position in the debate. Julian also identified the problem with trying to polarise the activities of users and proprietors as two mutually exclusive groups. Often in patentable technologies, proprietors are in effect potential infringers because of the very nature of innovation; therefore, as the workshop discussion largely considered, criminalising patents would interfere with the nature of innovation because it would elevate the risk of potential infringement to a level that noone would want to try to negotiate.

Phillip Johnson (pictured at right), who practised as a criminal barrister before moving into IP, gave a detailed background to the Directive. He noted the significance of applying criminal measures to all areas of intellectual property rights and outlined the potential public interest concerns with this kind of approach. In particular, the nature of criminal prosecution was discussed, including the consequences for the taxpayer. The impact of possible moves toward jury trials was also discussed, with the workshop discussion raising concerns over the possibly adverse impact on subsequent law, causing damage to the patent system in the long term.

In discussion, the impact on small and medium enterprises was considered as a potentially negative rather than positive consequence. The threat of criminal prosecution was debated as a way in which bigger interests could throw their weight around, effectively changing the landscape of the industry, with SMEs discouraged from entry into the market. Interestingly, Gwilym noted that the threat of criminal sanctions would be a public relations bonus to right-holders, giving a problematic moral high ground. He noted that, in contrast to the current bad press, a somewhat worrying outcome might be that prosecution of patent infringement is now re-presented as a "protection of the public" argument. Some participants suggested that big pharma was "playing the public health card."

Future Workshops
More workshops are planned, including discussions on the forthcoming report of the Gowers Review, a workshop on biopharmaceuticals and biosimilars, and more. If you'd like further details, email me, Johanna Gibson, to be on the mailing list, or check this blog and Patenting Lives for more.

Patents - Merit or Menace for the Knowledge Economy?

The October issue of Chemistry World has a "Head to Head" on patents and innovation, building on the current debates over patents and incentives. Many thanks to Jim Roche, Lecturer in the School of Science, Athlone Institute of Technology (AIT), Ireland, for pointing it out.


Barry Treves (pictured at left), President of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys UK (CIPA), takes on the "for," while Terence Kealey (pictured at right), Vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham UK, and clinical biochemist, handles the "against."

Mr Treves highlights the social benefit of obligations to disclose the full details of the patent, arguing that this characteristic of the patent framework "adds enormously to the wealth of scientific and technical knowledge available." He also argues that without the confidence created by the greater "certainty" in the market conferred by the patent monopoly, the entrepreneurial activity in research and development would be compromised. Although Dr Kealey proclaims "Patents are a Menace," he surprisingly seems to agree on one point with his opponent, conceding "Only in the pharmaceutical industry are patents justifiable." Head to head or tete a tete?

The article also comes at a very busy time for the European Patent Office (EPO). At the beginning of this month, Alain Pompidou, President of the EPO, said to the EPO's Online Services Conference in Lisbon, "If Europe really wants to become the world's leading knowledge economy by 2010, the patent network urgently needs to be developed." He supported ratification of the London Protocol and the opportunity to reduce costs of patenting, and advocated the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) as an important step towards harmonising patent law in the EU, with patents as a kind of "protection" for a competitive research market. But as discussed here earlier this month, the European Parliament voted to postpone membership of EPLA, with many expressing concerns for ongoing democratic control over patents.

Next week, 6-8 November, the EPO will be conducting the Patent Information Conference in Cyprus. A status report on the action list, from the 2005 conference in Budapest, has now been prepared and made available. 6-10 November, EPO Munich will be conducting a public seminar on IP for government officials and information administrators.

13-17 November, the EPO is staging IP Enforcement Week at the EPO Munich.

21 November, there will be a conference in London, Putting the right value on your patents, co-organised by the EPO, the UK Patent Office, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Taking place at the British Library Conference Centre, the meeting will concentrate on the commercialisation of patents, the management of portfolios, and other concerns of the market, business, and industry.

Free Public Workshop - London, 13 November 2006

Criminal Enforcement Directive

Let the Punishment Fit the Crime?

The Patenting Lives network will be conducting a free public workshop on the proposed European Directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights (Criminal Enforcement Directive).

The workshop will commence with a discussion by a panel of experts, looking at the possible implications of the Directive for patentable technologies and patent practice.

Expert Panellists

Gwilym Roberts, Partner, Kilburn & Strode Patent Attorneys

Julian Heathcote Hobbins, Senior Legal Counsel, FAST (Federation Against Software Theft)

Phillip Johnson, Barrister, DTI Legal Services, Legal Adviser to the UK Patent Office

(Chair Johanna Gibson)

The event will commence at 6pm, 13 November 2006, and will be held at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies (CCLS) in the QMIPRI Seminar Room, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London (map).

The workshop is FREE but numbers are limited, so please register by email to Johanna Gibson.

This is the first in a series of Patenting Lives public workshops on current issues in patent law. Stay tuned for more to come.

For more details on the Patenting Lives project and network, please visit patenting lives or of course, here, the patenting lives blog

Rice Patents - An Obstacle to Research

At the 2nd International Rice Congress 2006, held in Delhi last week, delegates considered whether patent protection presents a major obstacle to research and innovation.

The international event attracted scientists from around the world concerned with research and development contributing to food security, alleviating poverty, and enhancing economic and social development.

Areas of interest included genetic enhancement and development of seeds compatible with environmental conditions in developing countries, as well as technologies in production and storage and sustainability. In addition, the Congress also addressed related commercial and research industry concerns, including creating markets for rice, use of information and communication technologies (ICT), and public-private partnerships.

At the recent meeting, farm ministers from China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam, signed an accord for multilateral cooperation on these issues.

However, patent monopolies remain on the agenda as a significant obstacle to research and to the achievement these aims. Reporting on the Congress, Ashok Sharma notes in the Indian newspaper, the Financial Express, "rice scientists are likely to face major hurdles in moving towards their goal." The report notes the monopoly control of Syngenta in this area of agricultural production, and criticises the company's action in "seeking global patent rights over thousands of gene sequences." The article suggests that this is comparable to ownership of "the world's most important staple crop." Although strictly speaking, such patentability is tied to the identification of the gene sequence's function, this nevertheless raises the issue of classical interpretation leading to the consequences of a gene sequence in effect being subject to a monopoly. And indeed, this is what Sharma is suggesting, in arguing that Syngenta is attempting to extend monopolies over all uses on the basis of one use - thus, in effect, achieving a monopoly.

Also speaking at the Congress was Robert S Zeigler (pictured at right), of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) as well as a member of the International Advisory Board of Biotec. Biotec is one fo the centres of the National Science and Technology Agency (NSTDA), Thailand. Zeigler argued against the patenting of germplasm, maintaining that, while final products could be patentable, basic research tools should not be. Although Sharma expresses concern that this might not be possible, if a purpose-bound approach is pursued, the potential for relevant patent protection in gene technologies is available.

On this issue, the European Commission recently adopted a second report to the European Parliament on the Biotechnology Directive. The report is concerned with the implications of patent law in biotechnology and genetic engineering, including patents relating to gene sequences and stem cells. In particular, the report considers the "scope of protection" and the need or otherwise for a more limited "purpose-bound" approach to protection. Although not taking a position in the report, the issue nevertheless remains relevant to the Commission not only in a legal context, but also in an economic one, in that Member States have taken varying approaches to the interpretation of so-called gene patents. France and Germany both rely on purpose to limit the interpretation of patents in some technologies this area.

Also considered at the Congress was the impact of GM on international markets and the complexity of trade, as reported in another article in the Financial Express. Issues relating to food safety and certification were significant to the discussions, particularly in the light of the recent US GM rice contamination (see recent Patenting Lives posts, US Farmers to Sue Bayer, European Standing Committee Considers Rice Contamination, More Trouble for US Rice Industry, Japan Lifts Rice Ban, and Russia Suspends US Rice). And the fall-out from this contamination continues. In a press release from GE Free NZ, activists are urging the Ombudsman to become involved in New Zealand, in response to a rejection by the New Zealand authorities of calls to test for the contaminating strain, LLRICE601.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) will be hosting a Policy Seminar, "Distributional Effects of WTO Agricultural Reforms in Rich and Poor Countries," which will be considering some of these issues in food security and market concerns. The seminar will be held at the offices of IFPRI, Washington DC, 2 November.

DIME Papers Online

The papers and presentations from the DIME Conference staged in London 14-15 September are now online.

Papers include Frederic M Scherer's "The Political Economy of Patent Policy Reform in the United States," David Paul's "Using IPR to Expand the Research Common for Science," Fiona Macmillan's "Cultural Diversity in an Era of Corporate Dominance," and my own, "The Discovery of Invention."

Dynamics of Institutions and Market Economics (DIME) is a network of excellence of social scientists, including specialists in law, economics, and politics, as introduced in an earlier post. DIME is sponsored by the 6th Framework Programme (FP6) of the European Union.

DIME-EU Network of Excellence - Conference

Dynamics of Institutions and Market Economics (DIME) is a network of excellence of social scientists, sponsored by the 6th Framework Programme (FP6) of the European Union.

The DIME network is concerned with the impact of global forces in the context of the knowledge economy and, in particular, the socio-economic factors associated with increasing globalisation.

This week, 14-15 September 2006, I will be speaking at DIME's international conference in intellectual property rights in London, in association with the Global Network on IPR Research. The conference will be held in the Clore Management Centre, Birkbeck College, University of London, located in Bloomsbury.

Access to Health Forum

The Geneva Forum: Towards Global Access to Health, will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, 30 August to 1 September 2006. Abstracts are still open (1 May 2006) and registration is available online. For further information, contact the Forum Secretariat, MCI Suisse SA, Rue de Lyon 75, PO Box 502, CH - 1211 Geneva 13, Switzerland, or phone on +41 22 33 99 581 or email.

The Politics and Ideology of Intellectual Property - A New Political Order

I've just returned from a 2 day meeting, organised by the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) (a coalition of 65 EU and US consumer organisations), staged in Brussels. The meeting was a very full and provocative event and a valuable demonstration of the motivation and engagement of civil society on intellectual property issues and development. Indeed, it demonstrated the ever increasing importance of civil society in international norm setting, and the undeniable importance of "consumers" (indeed, producers in their own right) as stakeholders in international intellectual property law debate.

Significantly, the 2 days were a rich and diverse mix of perspectives, interests, and backgrounds, and included papers from Bruce Lehman (pictured at left), Senior Counsel with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, and Chairman of the International Intellectual Property Institute IIIPI), a non-profit think tank and development organization located in Washington, D.C. From August 1993 through December 1998, Lehman served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of the USPTO. As the Clinton Administration's primary representative for intellectual property rights protection, Lehman was involved in the negotiations leading to the TRIPS Agreement and the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaties. Lehman made possibly one of the most highly blogged statements of recent days, saying "the TRIPS Agreement has been a huge failure for the United States," because in doing so the US agreed to provide market access to other countries with a comparative advantage on wages and the result has been that products are no longer manufactured in the US. Lehman maintained that it would have been preferable to have introduced labour and environmental standards into the agreement. "If anyone thinks this was a huge success for the United States they are 100% wrong."

In the final panel, Ed Mierzwinski (pictured at right), of Public Interest Research Groups PIRG, said that "the first message is that the old political model of the IP political economy is over" as is the model of creative process: "We have to protect the internet because it is the best opportunity we have to democratise information, protect diversity of culture, and ensure balance that's fair to all peoples of the world." Peter Drahos paraphrased John Stuart Mill, saying it was time "to allow for experiments in property." This, he said, was the key to recognising diversity rather than assuming that harmonisation is the only way to economic growth.

This was yet another brilliant event organised by TACD, in the tradition of the historic Future of WIPO Conference in Geneva in 2004. The indefatigable Jamie Love, Manon Ress, Ed Mierzwinski, Jill Johnstone, Ben Wallis, and a host of others should be congratulated for making these opportunities practical realities. As should every delegate in what was not only an invaluable but also a hugely motivating and engaging 2 days.

Make way for the new order.

Access to Knowledge Conference - Yale

Next month I will be speaking at the Yale Information Society Project (ISP) conference on Access to Knowledge, 21-23 April 2006. The event will cover a range of knowledge industries and issues of access, and I will be speaking in the panel on Agriculture and GM Crops.

The Access to Knowledge campaign is concerned with the "balance" or otherwise in intellectual property systems, strategic negotiations of intellectual property rights, and publishing and access initiatives that have emerged in recent years. A draft Treaty on Access to Knowledge has been produced by a growing coalition of civil society organisations in response to an increasing awareness and concern for cultural life and the necessary participation with and access to the knowledge tools necessary for social, cultural, and economic development.

A significant milestone in this debate was the Future of WIPO Meeting in Geneva, 2004, from which emerged the Declaration on the Future of WIPO with over 600 signatures. At this same meeting, representatives from Argentina and Brazil spoke on the proposal that was the basis for the adoption of the development agenda at the 31st Session of the WIPO General Assembly.

Patenting Lives Conference Report

Last Thursday and Friday, speakers and delegates from all around the world gathered in London for the first conference of the Patenting Lives project. The conference was conceived as a genuinely interdisciplinary forum on the various questions and issues arising from the application of patent protection to life forms. Opened by Tony Howard, Deputy Director of the UK Patent Office, panels included human rights, public interest, development, traditional knowledge, agriculture, medicine, and gene patents, and speakers included academics, artist, NGO representatives, activists, and government representatives. The second day included a keynote address by Tony Taubman, Acting Director and Head of Traditional Knowledge, World Intellectual Property Organization. Full profiles of the speakers and abstracts of all the papers are available on the Patenting Lives conference site, with full papers and presentations to be made available soon, together with a photo gallery of the conference event. Thanks to everyone who was involved - speakers, discussants, and delegates - who made this such a valuable and I hope significant event.

Ron Marchant (Patent Office) - QMIPRI, 28 December

Ron Marchant, Chief Executive of the UK Patent Office, will speak in London, 28th December, as part of the Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute’s monthly seminar series, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London. Ron Marchant joined the Patent Office as an examiner in 1969 and was made Director of Patents in 1992. Since January 2004, Ron has held the position of Chief Executive of the UK Patent Office. Ron has been active in modernising patent application procedures within the Office and developing programmes of co-operation with other national IP offices.

The format for the event, an interview with Ron by Barbara Cookson, promises to deliver a stimulating and possibly provocative exchange of views and discussion with the audience. Barbara Cookson is a qualified European patent agent, trade mark attorney and solicitor. Formerly in practice in a number of City firms, Barbara has now become managing director of Filemot Technology, a consultancy that provides IP and IT services for entrepreneurial companies.

The Ron Marchant Interview event will be held Monday 28 November 2005, 5.30pm - 7.30pm, in Dean Rees House, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ. Please RSVP to Ilanah Simon, i.r.simon@qmul.ac.uk

Patenting Lives Conference, London, 1-2 December 2005

The Patenting Lives Conference will be held in London, UK, 1-2 December 2005. The full program for the Conference is available on the web-site. The registration form is also available on-line.

patentingLIVES
Law, Culture, Development

1-2 December 2005
London, United Kingdom

Clore Management Centre, 25–27 Torrington Square, London WC1

A 2 day international and interdisciplinary conference on life patents
An exploration of the ethical, cultural, social, legal, and scientific questions


1 December 2005
Opening Session: Tony Howard, UK Patent Office
Human Rights – Kathryn Garforth (McGill; Independent Consultant); Loyd Norella (Philippines) Adejoke Oyewunmi (University of Lagos)
Development and Innovation – Asolo Adeyeye Adewole (West African Network on Business Ethics); Arjun Mehta (The Science Ashram, India); Edson Beas Rodrigues (International Trade Law and Development Institute, Brazil)
Public Goods, Public Interest – Ashish Gosain (Advocate, India); Chris Hamilton (LSE); Loyd Norella; Reetu Sogani (CAC, India)
Agriculture – Jeremy de Beer (Ottawa); Diwakar Poudel (LIBIRD, Nepal); Dwijen Rangnekar (Warwick); Sangeeta Udgaonkar (Advocate, India)
2 December 2005
Keynote: Antony Taubman, World Intellectual Property Organisation
Traditional Knowledge – Patrick Juvet Lowe (University of Dschang, Cameroon); Chika Onwuekwe (Calgary); Daniel Robinson (UNSW, ICTSD)
Medicine and Public Health – Marion Motari (UNU, Maastricht); Luigi Palombi (Minter Ellison Lawyers, UNSW Australia); Angela Stanton (Claremont USA)
Ethical, Legal and Social Issues of Human Gene Patents – David Castle (Guelph); Richard Gold (McGill); Tim Caulfield (Alberta); Stuart Smyth (Saskatchewan)
Closing Roundtable: Dr Johanna Gibson (QMIPRI), Michelle Childs (Consumer Project on Technology), Dr Graham Dutfield (QMIPRI), William New (IP Watch, Geneva)

www.patentinglives.org