Dr. Sharon CRANE (US)
Mr. JiHoon Joseph HONG (KR)
Dr. Andreas OSER (DE)

Practice Topic 1: To what extent is data (experimental data or correlation data between input and output) is required for AI-generated application inventions?
This session will address issues regarding AI model inventions and provide a discussion of requirements for AI-based patent applications.
Is defining input/output of the AI model sufficient? Is data from a generated model required? If required, to what extent? Should accuracy be above a certain level? How do jurisdictions differ?

Ms. Elia SUGRANES (ES)
Mr. Min-Tai KIM (Head of IP Center, CJ Cheil Jedang Corp., KR)
Dr. Francesco Paolo VATTI (IT)

Practice Topic 2: A Common Denominator in Trade Mark and Design
This session will discover availability, merits and demerits for alternative or parallel registration of the same subject matter as a trade mark and a design in the global context. Exploring the value and necessity of registering and protecting an industrial design as a trade mark, the session will consider eligibility for registering and protecting an industrial design as a trade mark in major jurisdictions.

Industry :
Ms. Jeeyeon HAN (Director, Hanmi Science Co. Ltd, Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd)
Ms. Jeeyoun SHIN (Senior Director, ABL Bio Inc)
Mr. Dookyu KIM (Director, HP Printing Korea Co. Ltd, President of KPAA)

IP firms :
Mr. Robert WATSON (UK)
Mr. Jordan KIM (KR)
Mr. Aaron FISHMAN (US)
Mr. Yoshinori SHIMIZU (JP)

Management Topic 1: Which IP firm should you hire? - A discussion from different perspectives
In this session a panel including IP managers from companies, and representatives from IP firms, will discuss processes and criteria for selecting an IP firm to work with, and for evaluating its performance. How is a firm selected? How is its performance reviewed? What are the main criteria and how are they appreciated? Who is in charge of this process within the firm and how is it organised? The session will last the whole afternoon and will be run in three parts.

In the first part, Industry representatives will share their perspective and explain what they are looking for when they select an IP firm.
In the second part, representatives from IP firms will do the same, explaining the main criteria and priorities for selecting a (foreign) IP firm to work with.
The third part will be ‘en banc’, and the differences between the perspectives explained during parts 1 and 2 will be discussed.

Mr. Martin SCHWEIGER (DE/SG)
Mr. Jungho YUN (Patent Attorney, WERT) (KR)
Mr. Jang-Hyun YOO (Patent Attorney, IPACTORY, KR)
Mr. Jeff Tang (Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Circle Internet Financial, US)

Practice Topic 3: AI assisted drafting and other AI assisted practices; how far have we come and how far can we go?
This session will provide an update on the ways in which specifications/claims/drawings can be drafted using AI assisted models, specifically after the emergence of LLM models. The benefits and limitations of the use of AI models in practice will be highlighted. Use of AI models for patent firm management will also be discussed, including the provision of customer services with AI assisted tools.

Judge Mr. Young Gi Kim (High Court Judge, IP High Court) (KR)
Mr. Claus Becker (Partner, Glawe Delfs Moll) (DE)
Mr. Dominic Adair (Partner, Bristows) (UK)
Mr. Dong Suk Bae (Intellectual Discovery, Head of IP Biz Division, IP Transaction Project Leader, LG Electronics) (KR)
Mr. Raja Saliba (Partner, Sughrue Mion) (US)

Enforcement Topic 1: Evidence and common sense are needed to determine where the truth lies
"Where there is no evidence, the burden of proof cannot be discharged. The mere assertion of a fact is not sufficient; the burden of proving it lies on the person who asserts it." (Sir Edward Coke, 1552-1634, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas). The key to success in any legal proceedings is strong and credible evidence, but what kind of evidence - and how much - is needed in IP litigation? Is it enough to file prior art references when arguing for invalidity of a patent, or must they be backed up by expert testimony? The person skilled in the art is a well-known character in patent litigation, but what exactly does she or he know? How can that knowledge and skill be proven? How will it be used? In an enforcement action, evidence of infringement must be adduced, but sometimes it is very hard to obtain. What financial evidence is needed to calculate damages or other losses? This vital session will review what evidence is needed to prove a case in IP litigation in major jurisdictions and will look at options for obtaining such evidence (e.g. expert reports, purchase of items, seizure, use of information found on the Internet, etc.), highlighting the benefits and limitations of each option.

Mr. Andrew SEONGSIK AHN (Country General Manager Anaqua) (KR)
Ms. Luna ZHANG (CN)
Ms. Eunha SUNG (Senior Director, CHA Medical Group, CHA Hospital) (KR)
Mr. JiHoon KIM (Lead Business Solution Consultant, Clarivate) (KR)

Management Topic 2: IP service providers: Blessing or curse?
“IP service providers” use technology and propose new ways to communicate with clients. They sometimes offer “basic” services (such as annuity payment) and may also offer more elaborate services around IP. IP firms may see many of these providers as a threat to their traditional business. However, these providers could open new directions where IP firms with competent teams and organisations can be very relevant and bring enhanced benefits to clients. Whatever the way you look at them, IP service providers are changing the IP game and this session will explore their interaction with IP firms, and risks or opportunities they contribute or create.

Ms. Esther SEOW (SG)
Prof. Won-oh KIM (Director of Law Research Institute and AI·Data Law Center , Inha University) (KR)
Ms. Anna KING (US)
Ms. Ana de SAMPAIO (PT)

Practice Topic 4: Availability of a letter of consent and potential risk for concurrent use of a similar trade mark under a co-existence agreement
Recently in Korea, the submission of a letter of consent has made it possible for co-existence registration by different owners. However, in cases where coexistence registration leads to consumer confusion, the registered trade mark may be at risk of cancellation. This session will address the potential risks that prior mark owners should consider when granting consent for coexistence registration. It will also explore the availabilities for coexistence registration by a letter of consent in different jurisdictions.