As technology rapidly advances, it has become clear that AI is leading the way and transforming the way we view and create content. A recent strike among SAG-AFTRA members eventually led to an agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers aiming to safeguard performers’ rights in relation to AI. Though confined to the entertainment industry, this agreement nevertheless serves as an outline for potential future discussions as companies utilizing generative AI for content creation start to equip themselves with the necessary tools to limit infringement on IP and ensure compliance.
While litigation and enforcement remain critical for IP leaders, the current economic climate is leading them to seek efficient strategies that will not jeopardize results.
Moderated by McAndrews IP
It is rare that a counterfeit is manufactured in the same geographical region in which it is sold. Components will often be sourced and assembled across the globe, reason for which brands are increasingly turning to supply chains and Customs to have an overview of the process and track down fake goods before they make it online. Customs and
border control going forward will continue to play a vital role in tracking down and stopping the inflow of counterfeits, but the key for in-house counsel remains to be able to work efficiently both with them and supply chain teams in order to cut off the issue at its root.
The whack-a-mole game of counterfeiting continues, but of recent years, schemes have become increasingly elaborate. With scams and phishing now taking centre stage and gravely affecting brand reputation and revenue, companies are increasingly having to come up with strategies that match the sophistication of such counterfeiting. The responsibility has also naturally shifted: while brand protection professionals might have been alone in tackling this beforehand, it has now become clear that everyone in the business, be it upper management, sales or marketing, must get involved and work together in order to detect these scams early and shut them down before the brand is affected.
The patent and trademark trolls landscape is an increasingly complex and sophisticated one, and one that necessitates a solid strategy to combat. Striking a balance between protection
1:1 BUSINESS MEETINGS
4
Global IP Exchange US 2025
and warding off bad actors is key with respect to two proposed and highly divisive bills, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act. While designed to strengthen IP protections, detractors assert that these acts would have the opposite effect by empowering trolls and making it harder to invalidate overly broad patents.
For a retailer like Target, launching own brands is a crucial part of the business model. From home goods to apparel, each own brand is in essence a standalone business in need of a marketing campaign, labelling, packaging and of course, a trademark to protect its assets. However, following their inability to register a trademark for a new brand, Target discovered a systemic problem: the successful registrations of thousands of fraudulent trademark applications. This emerging threat poses a significant issue for professionals – with a backlogged office and trademarks blocked by prior – fraudulent – applications, legitimate trademark owners are accruing significant costs and resources. Join this session to discover how Target, one of the leading trademark filers domestically and globally, has tackled this issue and is actively raising awareness to ensure the necessary steps are taken to manage fraudulent activity.
A brand-new format for the 2025 Global IP Exchange US, Focus Rooms aim to offer a more niche, personalised angle to your challenges. Before the Exchange, you can opt to submit a problem you are currently facing that you do not see on the agenda – fellow peers will then be invited to gather around and discuss off-the-cuff solutions, sharing expertise and fresh ideas that have the potential to benefit all.
In the highly competitive and regulated landscape of pharmaceuticals, striking a balance between the regulatory team’s communications with the FDA and the IP team’s filed patent can often lead to tension internally and a risk of non-compliance. This misalignment can also cause delays and missed opportunities, especially in such a fast-paced industry where timing is of the essence. Join this session to unpack this tension between internal teams, and what strategies can be employed to ensure a greater harmonization between IP and regulatory objectives.
Patents and trademarks are viewed as mere protection, without much capacity for profit. In the current economic climate, this can reflect badly on the IP department, which is seen as a cost department. But increasingly, there have been efforts to monetize IP assets in an effort to bring IP to the forefront as a valuable advantage to the business. However, this strategy can also be challenging – the changing nature of the market means that an asset can quickly have its worth reduced, resulting in further challenges. It is one that requires careful consideration and an understanding of IP-backed financing in order to mitigate risk for the business.
In-house counsel working in pharmaceuticals and biotech encounter rather unique challenges when it comes to clinical trial disclosures. The question remains as to whether patent applications should be filed before the company starts the trial, or only once the trial has been completed, and results have been received and evaluated. While the former option risks the patent being rejected without the necessary data to support the invention, the latter means details of the trial could enter the public domain or that another company pre-publishes something similar. It is of the upmost importance in this sense to ensure patent strategy is as efficient as possible in order to balance the timing and ensure the patent is granted.