Promoting transnational dialogue among judiciaries
The annual WIPO Intellectual Property Judges Forum aims to provide a platform for judges from across the globe to exchange their expertise on the most pressing intellectual property (IP) challenges raised by accelerating innovation and the increasingly transnational use of IP.
The 2025 WIPO Intellectual Property Judges Forum was held on October 14 and 15, 2025.
The WIPO Intellectual Property Judges Forum is an annual event organized by the WIPO Judicial Institute as part of the Organization’s work with the judiciaries. In 2025, the Forum brought together over 520 judges from 100 national and regional jurisdictions, to engage with their global peers. The program centered on emerging issues within several of the most established domains of intellectual property law, including industrial designs, pharmaceutical patents, well-known trademarks, and copyright related rights.
Save the date for 2026!
The 2026 WIPO Intellectual Property Judges Forum will be held on October 13 and 14, 2026.
Marco Alemán Assistant Director General, IP and Innovation Ecosystems Sector, WIPO
Rian Kalden Presiding Judge, Second Panel of the Court of Appeal, Unified Patent Court, Luxembourg; Chair of the WIPO Advisory Board of Judges
Master of Ceremonies: Natalie Carlson Legal Counsellor, WIPO Judicial Institute , IP and Innovation Ecosystems Sector, WIPO
Master of Ceremonies: Inés Fernández Ulate Legal Officer, WIPO Judicial Institute , IP and Innovation Ecosystems Sector, WIPO
Session 1: Industrial Designs (9.15 – 10.30)
An industrial design right protects the appearance or aesthetic features of a product, including three-dimensional features, such as shape, and two-dimensional features, such as patterns, lines, or color. Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of products of industry and handicraft items, and may also be relevant to graphic symbols, graphical user interfaces (GUIs), and logos. Given the nature of industrial designs, disputes involving industrial design rights may raise issues that overlap with other IP rights. In this session, panelists will explore recent cases that address these overlapping issues, while also discussing their experiences with assessing the requirements for design protection, the exclusion of technical aspects from design rights, and design protection for components of a complex product.
Requirements for design protection (e.g., questions of non-obviousness and originality)
Exclusion of technical aspects from design rights
Design protection for components of a complex product
Overlapping issues of industrial designs and other IP rights
Moderator and Speakers:
Moderator: Rian Kalden Presiding Judge, Second Panel of the Court of Appeal, Unified Patent Court, Luxembourg
Pharmaceutical patents present complex legal challenges at the intersection of innovation, competition, and public access. Evolving case law across jurisdictions continues to shape key aspects of patent validity, with courts closely examining enablement, plausibility, and sufficiency requirements to ensure that patent disclosures are robust and credible. The use and admissibility of post-filing experimental data remains contentious and can be pivotal in validity disputes. The patentability of incremental innovations-such as follow-on inventions-faces heightened scrutiny, particularly in inventive step analyses. Second medical use patents, which protect new therapeutic applications of known substances, are subject to rigorous validity assessments. Infringement analysis has become increasingly nuanced, covering direct, indirect, and equivalence-based infringement, where products may fall within the patent’s scope even if they do not literally infringe. This panel will explore these developments through recent case studies from their respective jurisdictions.
Selected aspects of patent validity (sufficiency of disclosure: enablement and plausibility criteria)
Infringement analysis (direct, indirect, and by equivalence)
Moderator and Speakers:
Moderator: Stephen Burley Justice, Federal Court of Australia, Sydney, Australia
Ingo Beckedorf Deputy President, Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, European Patent Organisation, Haar, Germany
Ángel Galgo Peco President, Chamber No. 32, Court of Appeal of Madrid, Spain
Fabian Hoffmann Judge, Federal Court of Justice, Karlsruhe, Germany
Michael Manson Justice, Federal Court of Canada, Ottawa, Canada
This session will explore the judicial approaches surrounding the protection of well-known marks. Although the Paris Convention and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement recognize enhanced protection for well-known marks, they leave the term undefined. Some guidance can be found in the 1999 WIPO Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks. However, in many instances, national courts are required to interpret the meaning of well-known and define its contours. The panel of judges from different jurisdictions will share how they approach key issues, including criteria for determining well-known status, distinctions between similar categories (famous marks, marks with reputation), and evidentiary standards. The session will also address how courts have decided on related claims, such as those of dilution and misuse.
Criteria to determine well-known marks
Difference between well-known marks, famous marks and marks with reputation
Distinction between marks well-known to the public at large and those well-known to relevant sectors
Evidence and burden of proof
Dilution and misuse
Moderator and Speakers:
Moderator: Prathiba M. Singh Justice, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, India
Serkan Dalkıran Judge, 13th Civil Court of First Instance, Diyarbakir, Türkiye
Olayinka Faji Justice, Federal High Court, Lagos, Nigeria
Savvas S. Papasavvas Vice-President, General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg
Massimo Scuffi President, Second Division, Board of Appeal, Italian Patent and Trademark Office, Rome, Italy
The outcome of IP disputes can depend heavily on the quality and reliability of the evidence presented. As online platforms and technologies expand, and with globalization resulting in IP proceedings that are likely to have implications beyond national borders, the evidence used in IP cases may include digital evidence and cross-border evidence. With reference to recent decisions from their jurisdictions, panelists in this session will examine the challenges and legal implications arising from the use of digital and cross-border evidence, as well as issues related to rules of discovery and evidence gathering, expert evidence in patent cases, and survey evidence in trademark cases.
Digital evidence, including issues of authentication
Cross-border evidence and its legal implications
Rules of discovery and evidence-gathering
Role of experts
Survey evidence
Moderator and Speakers:
Moderator: Annabelle Bennett Former Judge, Federal Court of Australia, Sydney, Australia
Florence Butin President, Court of First Instance – Paris Central Division, Unified Patent Court
Angela Furlanetto Justice, Federal Court of Canada, Ottawa, Canada
Zane Pētersone Judge, Supreme Court, Riga, Latvia
Sugiura Masaki Judge, Tokyo District Court (IP Division), Japan
Latifa Tlili President, Specialized Commercial Court of Algiers, Algeria
Session 5: Copyright Related Rights (9.00 – 10.15)
Many jurisdictions designate copyright related rights, also known as neighboring rights, to protect the contributions of performers, phonogram producers, and broadcasters in disseminating creative works. Although international treaties, such as the Rome Convention, WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, have sought to harmonize aspects of protection globally, approaches differ across jurisdictions. Informed by recent judgments, panelists will discuss overlaps between the subject matter eligible for related right and copyright protection, the scope of protection afforded to related right holders, infringement, equitable remuneration and CMOs, and challenges interpreting licensing agreements in dynamic legal and technological environments.
Eligible subject matter and intersections with copyright
Scope of rights, including moral rights
Infringement
Equitable remuneration and CMOs
Licensing in evolving legal and technological environments
With the democratization of media, growth of personal brands and proliferation of digital replicas, courts are increasingly adjudicating cases involving a form of IP right known broadly as “personality rights”. The scope of rights in one’s voice, image, and likeness, sometimes referred to as the “right of publicity”, vary across jurisdictions, as does the legal basis for protection, which may be constitutional, statutory, or rooted in common law. In some jurisdictions, personality rights are afforded to public figures as a means to redress the commercial misappropriation of their persona. Personality rights may be intertwined with the right to privacy and require courts to consider and balance human rights with the public interest and freedom of expression. When similar rights are made available to legal entities, courts have been asked to determine the type of remedies available to redress a violation. Panelists in this session will share insights on these matters through the lens of recent court cases.
Scope of rights over the unauthorized use of an individual’s voice, image, or likeness
The right to privacy and its relation to human rights, the public interest, and freedom of expression
The right of publicity and commercial misappropriation of one’s persona
Licensing and assignment of personality rights
Challenges posed by digitalization, commercialization, and generative AI
Remedies available to legal entities, as compared to natural persons
Moderator and Speakers:
Moderator: Richard Hacon Presiding Judge, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, London, United Kingdom
Li Li Judge, No. 3 Civil Trial Division (Intellectual Property Division), Supreme People’s Court, Beijing, China
Stephen Mubiru Head of Mukono Circuit, High Court, Kampala, Uganda
Satish Chandra Sharma Justice, Supreme Court, New Delhi, India
Pavel Tůma President, Panel of the Civil and Commercial Division, Supreme Court, Brno, Czech Republic
Min Eun-Joo Director, WIPO Judicial Institute, IP and Innovation Ecosystems Sector, WIPO
Lunch Break (12.45 – 14.15)
Session 7: Calculation of Damages in Civil Proceedings (14.15 – 15.30)
Different methodologies, parameters and considerations influence how compensatory damages are awarded in IP disputes. National legislation generally provides the basis for relief and compensation, but courts are, in many instances, required to set the standards and contours for awarding damages. This session will explore legal and evidentiary issues in the calculation of damages in IP disputes. Panelists will discuss recent court decisions from their jurisdictions, on issues such as the role of willful infringement, the various methods used to quantify damages—including actual damages, infringer’s profits, and statutory damages, and the availability and limits of punitive damages.
Subjective elements in the quantification of damages (e.g., willful or intentional infringement)
Methods to calculate recoverable damages (e.g., actual damages, infringers profits, statutory damages)
Punitive or enhanced damages
Evidentiary issues
Moderator and Speakers:
Moderator: Dedar Singh Gill High Court Judge, Supreme Court, Singapore
Nehad Al Hussban Justice, Supreme Court, Amman, Jordan
Jean-Christophe Gayet Presiding Judge, Third Section, Third Chamber, First Instance Court of Paris, France
Mustapher Mohamed Siyani Principal Judge, High Court of Tanzania, Dodoma, United Republic of Tanzania
Woo Sungyop Presiding Judge, Fourth Division, Intellectual Property High Court of Korea, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Criminal enforcement of IP rights involves a multifaceted process that spans various procedural stages and engages diverse stakeholders. Jurisdictions differ in how they define IP crimes and in the legal thresholds for classifying conduct as criminal. A central challenge lies in clarifying the substantive elements of criminal IP offenses, including the threshold of scale, intent or commercial nature of the act, as well as the scope of protected IP rights.
Assessing financial harm caused by illicit activities, including the online sale and distribution of counterfeit and pirate goods and content, presents comparable complexity. Several methodologies exist to estimate losses, but quantifying economic harm to rightsholders remains an ongoing challenge. Evidentiary requirements in criminal IP enforcement similarly pose notable difficulties. The complex, often digital nature of these offenses complicates gathering and presenting admissible evidence. The panel will analyze these issues through recent cases decided in their jurisdictions.
Substantive elements of criminal IP offenses
Evidence in proceedings relating to IP crime
Criminal penalties and sentencing
Navigating civil or administrative actions in parallel with criminal proceedings
Jurisdictional enforcement challenges from the judiciary perspective
Moderator and Speakers:
Moderator: Dumisani Zondi Deputy President, Supreme Court of Appeal, Bloemfontein, South Africa
Rosmari D. Carandang Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy, Manila, Philippines
Mohammad ElZend Appellate Judge, Tanta High Court of Appeals; Senior Advisor, International and Cultural Cooperation Department, Ministry of Justice, Cairo, Egypt
Lee Hyejin Presiding Judge, Intellectual Property High Court of Korea, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Arsen Nikoghosyan Judge, Criminal Court of Appeal, Yerevan, Armenia
María Francisca Zapata García Judge, First Guarantee Court, Santiago, Chile
