This interactive discussion explores how knowing what evidence and arguments have already succeeded or failed in litigation/oppositions around the world provides a head start and advantage in preparing or defending cases at the EPO and courts. 

AI is rapidly transforming life sciences and healthcare, powering applications in drug development, diagnostics and clinical decision support. With many technologies now likely to fall within the EU AI Act’s high-risk category, companies must implement robust governance and oversight mechanisms while navigating complex interactions with medical device frameworks and emerging product liability rules.

This session will examine how the EU AI Act’s high risk framework is shaping AI deployment across the industry, and explore the implications of the landmark legislation for your legal governance structures, technology validation and liability risk.

-Which life science technologies are most likely to fall within the EU AI Act’s high-risk classification?
- What governance, transparency and human oversight obligations will companies need to implement when deploying high-risk AI systems?
- How will the AI Act interact with existing MDR and IVDR frameworks, particularly for AI-enabled diagnostics and medical device software?
- Could overlapping requirements between the AI Act, MDR/IVDR and product liability frameworks create new litigation risks and challenges for technology validation?
- What practical steps should legal teams take to ensure their high-risk AI governance frameworks are fit for purpose?

From recent updates to patent term extensions and the patent linkage system to fundamental reforms to judicial enforcement and regulatory exclusivities, the Chinese life science legal landscape has undergone change on a seismic scale in recent years.

This compare-and-contrast session will examine how China’s evolving patent linkage system, PTE regime, regulatory exclusivities and enforcement landscape compare with similar frameworks in Europe, and what this means for your international strategy.

- Patent Term Extensions - How well is the system working? What are the core issues? How does it compare to SPC protection?
- Patent Linkage System – How well is it working? Where are the difficulties for companies? Does it provide a different level of certainty around the time of exclusivity loss and generic entry compared to the EU?
- Data Exclusivity & RDP – How are protections changing in China? Are the new regulatory frameworks converging with those in the EU?
- How similar is the patent litigation and antitrust enforcement landscape between China and the EU?

High-value life science acquisitions seldom occur without scrutiny. As governments increasingly treat advanced biotechnology, pharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities and proprietary research platforms as strategically sensitive assets, cross-border transactions in the sector are more likely than ever to trigger foreign investment screening and national security review. At the same time, the core patent portfolios, platform technologies and regulatory data packages driving these deals often attract immediate attention from competitors seeking to challenge the strength and scope of acquired IP before commercial launch.

This session will examine how legal teams safeguard the value of life science acquisitions by navigating foreign investment clearance processes while proactively managing the IP risks associated with newly acquired technologies. Bringing together corporate and IP perspectives, the discussion will explore how your company can structure transactions and prepare for potential IP challenges that may arise once high-profile acquisitions become public.

- When do life science acquisitions trigger foreign investment screening, and how can companies manage the resulting deal approval risk?
- How do regulators assess transactions involving strategically important life science technologies and IP portfolios?
- How can legal teams identify vulnerabilities in acquired patent portfolios and assess FTO risks before completing a transaction?
- What early IP and legal measures need to be put in place to protect newly acquired products?
- How should legal teams coordinate post acquisition to safeguard exclusivity and maximise the long-term value of acquired assets?

Differences between European and U.S. patent doctrines in areas such as inventive step/non obviousness, sufficiency/enablement and the treatment of plausibility/written description create significant strategic complexity for companies seeking to secure or challenge patent protection globally. For IP teams, the challenge lies not only in understanding how different jurisdictions approach core aspects of patentability in isolation, but also in assessing how contrasting approaches shape the coordination of prosecution and litigation strategy across international markets.

This multi-jurisdictional compare-and-contrast session will analyse diverging European and USPTO approaches to patentability, and examine how legal teams can adapt patent drafting and broader portfolio management strategies in response.

- What are the most consequential points of divergence between European and USPTO approaches to inventive step/non-obviousness and sufficiency/enablement?
- Is plausibility in Europe becoming a higher hurdle than U.S. written description and enablement, or are the two systems beginning to converge in these respects?
- How do contrasting approaches to patentability shape how originator and generic companies approach opposition and litigation strategies in each jurisdiction?
- What do doctrinal differences mean for how legal teams coordinate patent drafting, prosecution and post-grant strategy, including the use of PTAB proceedings, across the U.S. and Europe?