Savoy ballroom in which the talks had been delivered earlier in the day, became the setting for the Gala Dinner. This magnificent venue enabled participants and their guests to enjoy a delicious menu and a chance to spend time with long standing friends or newly met business partners. All the delegates were delighted when it was announced that the PTMG Spring 2015 conference would be held in Venice. Day 2 On the morning of Day 2, following the patients. Looking ahead, Julia thought that third party “payers” are likely to become more actively involved in these issues, especially as economies are under continuing pressure. Time will tell how matters develop, from the perspective of opportunities afforded by social media, and how these must be counterbalanced with the inherent risks that are also involved. Perhaps the key advantage of social media is that it gives trade mark owners their Julia Pike Chairman’s remarks, we were treated to a lively and engaging talk from Julia Pike of Sandoz, who spoke about generic patent litigation from the perspective of the “patent obsessed patient”. In doing so, Julia gave us some interesting insights into the inter-relationships between generics and pharmaceutical companies, as well as the competitive dynamics amongst generics companies in their attempts to become the first to market following expiry of the primary patent protection for drug compounds. Amongst the features which make pharmaceutical patent litigation unique, Julia cited the fact that generic drugs are paid for by governments; that substitution of originator products for generics can occur without the intervention of the end-user patients; the enormous impact on drug prices immediately following expiry of primary patents (typically 95% price reduction within a few weeks); and that access to healthcare is considered to be a “human right”. Against this background, the key beneficiaries of generic competitors are national healthcare systems, yet these are usually third parties not directly engaged in patent litigation between patentees and generics companies. Julia noted, however, the increasing interest of third party stakeholders, and general interest shown by anti-trust authorities in so-called “pay for delay” settlements, particularly following the 2008 sector inquiry. Julia’s view was that the European Commission has not issued sufficient guidance in relation to settlements and that the effect, in practical terms, is that generics companies are encouraged to litigate rather than settle. This, she said, was not only frustrating for generics companies, but also not in the best interests of the “patent obsessed patient”. The next speaker, Eifion Morris of Stephenson Harwood, kicked off with a few interesting facts about the Savoy, before turning to a review of case law relating to trade mark applications made in bad faith. First, he looked at the OHIM approach, both before and since the Pelikan case. Following the General Court decision in Pelikan, OHIM amended its guidelines to say that an application ostensibly filed to circumvent the 5 year non-use period applicable to the applicant’s earlier (very similar) mark may be bad faith but was not necessarily so. Amongst the relevant factors in assessing bad faith will be the circumstances under which, and reasons why, the contested application is made. Since the burden of proof falls on the applicant for invalidity, who is unlikely to be privy to all the circumstances surrounding the proprietor’s decision to file, it is difficult to see how this will be established in practice. Eifion went on to review the approach taken under the national systems in the UK, Germany and France, each of which are slightly different from the OHIM position and from each other. He concluded by drawing together some indicators of filing strategies likely to be deemed bad faith, and the potential outcomes in different jurisdictions. Such indicators include the stockpiling of trade marks for use in relation to drugs coming through the pipeline, artificially preserving the life of marks by refiling after the 5 year grace period, applying to register multiple slight variations of the same mark and so-called “blocking” registrations. After the coffee break, we received a presentation from Janet Morgan and Kai Gait of GSK, who were quite the dynamic duo and gave a marketers’ perspective on social media opportunities and pitfalls in the pharmaceutical industry. Describing some of today’s key social media channels and the different types of social media users (apparently many of us are what the experts refer to as “lurkers”!), the speakers then focussed on the numerous 8 Eifion Morris own voice and facilitates conversations with customers and others, rather than relying on the press to interpret and report on what they say. The ability to have direct, real-time communications with people can be an enormously powerful tool, not only for marketing, but also for other important purposes such as correcting mis-information or raising awareness of particular medical conditions. Kai Gait Our final speaker of the morning was John Deavin of Deavin Associates, who gave a presentation on the classification, naming and regulation of medical devices.  He looked first at what we mean by medical technology, the enormous range of products falling within this term, and the borderline between medical devices and pharmaceuticals (which can be a very narrow distinction in some cases). Overall, we gained a vivid picture of how social media can be used to great effect in the pharmaceutical industry, as a means of providing high quality information in a society which is increasingly “time poor and information hungry”. Importantly, however, embracing the benefits of social media comes with a degree of risk, which must be managed by having a suitable crisis strategy in place.  This involves being ready to deal with adverse situations at a moment’s notice, as well as aiming for an appropriate balance between responsiveness on the part of the company, whilst at the same time giving people the opportunity to ‘vent’. Janet Morgan