Subscribe: Email | TuneIn | RSS | More
Register for the 2016 INTA Annual Meeting at https://inta.org !!
In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, I spoke with Deborah Hampton, President of the International Trademark Association (INTA) and Global Brand Enforcement and Trademark Team Leader at the Chemours Company.
I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 173 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today’s interview guest is Deborah Hampton. She is the Global Brand Enforcement & Trademark Team Leader at The Chemours Company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademarks Association. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you:
The US Department of Justice and the USPTO filed a joint statement supporting the right of Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) to seek injunctions against patent infringers. This position challenges established post-eBay case law, which has made it difficult for NPEs to obtain injunctive relief.
The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that security for costs can be provided through specialized insurance policies. This significantly lowers the financial barriers to bringing patent actions at the UPC, as companies no longer need to deposit large amounts of liquid capital as security.
Huawei has filed a new lawsuit at UPC Mannheim against twelve Walt Disney Group companies (Ref. UPC-CFL-0000352/2026), asserting EP 3 211 897 relating to transform coefficient coding under the HEVC standard used by Disney+. Two additional suits were filed at Munich Regional Court I. In a parallel action, Huawei is suing Meta and Facebook at the UPC over EP 3 471 419, covering video compression in end devices. This continues Huawei’s strategy of pressuring streaming and platform providers into licensing its SEP portfolios.
In a landmark first, the UPC Court of Appeal has referred a legal question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ): whether the UPC has jurisdiction over defendants without a seat in a UPC member state, provided a co-defendant is domiciled within the UPC territory (“long-arm jurisdiction”). The case arose from a dispute between Dyson and Chinese competitor Dreame; the first-instance injunction was simultaneously extended to cover newer Dreame hair dryers. For German companies, this signals a gradual expansion of UPC jurisdiction beyond its territorial borders, with significant implications for cross-border patent strategy.
And now let’s jump into the interview with Deborah Hampton:
Our conversation covered one central question:
How must intellectual property enforcement evolve in a world that is more global, digital, and complex than ever before?
A Career Built on Intellectual Property
Deborah Hampton has spent more than four decades in the field of intellectual property. She began her career as a paralegal in a small IP firm in New York and quickly discovered her passion for the subject.
Over the years, IP has taken her around the world. She has worked with leading professionals, governments, and institutions. Her experience reflects a key truth: IP is not a narrow legal discipline. It is a global ecosystem that connects law, business, innovation, and policy.
Counterfeiting: A Much Bigger Problem Than Many Think
One of the key topics in our discussion was counterfeiting.
Many people still see counterfeit goods as a minor issue—cheap handbags or fake T-shirts bought on holiday. But the reality is far more serious.
Counterfeiting creates real risks for consumers because products often bypass safety and quality standards. It damages trust in brands and undermines legitimate marketplaces, especially online.
The economic impact is also significant. Companies lose revenue, innovation slows down, and jobs are affected. Smaller businesses suffer the most because they often lack the resources to fight counterfeiting effectively.
Perhaps most concerning is the link to organized crime. Counterfeiting is not an isolated activity. It is often part of larger illegal networks.
From Deborah Hampton’s perspective, effective enforcement must address both supply and demand. That includes stronger border measures, better online enforcement, and, importantly, consumer education.
The Core Problem: Fragmentation in IP Enforcement
A central theme of the interview was fragmentation.
Many companies approach IP protection in silos. Legal teams, cybersecurity experts, business units, and external advisors often work separately. Even when they pursue the same goal, their efforts are not aligned.
This leads to inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and unnecessary risks.
To address this, Deborah Hampton has launched a Presidential Task Force at INTA. The goal is to create a unified approach to IP protection and enforcement.
The idea is simple but powerful:
Bring all stakeholders together and align strategy, enforcement, and measurement.
This includes not only companies and their advisors but also regulators, courts, customs authorities, and IP offices. Only a coordinated approach can effectively address global challenges like counterfeiting.
The Changing Role of IP Professionals
Another important insight is how the role of IP professionals is changing.
In the past, IP work was often reactive and focused on legal protection. Today, expectations are much higher.
IP professionals are now expected to:
- Act as strategic advisors to the business
- Align IP with commercial goals
- Manage global and digital portfolios
- Use data to make better decisions
At the same time, new technologies such as artificial intelligence are transforming how IP is managed and enforced. These tools create efficiencies but also raise new legal and strategic questions.
Budget constraints add another layer of complexity. Teams must achieve more with fewer resources.
In short, IP professionals must become more strategic, more integrated, and more business-focused.
Why the INTA Annual Meeting Matters
We also discussed the upcoming INTA Annual Meeting in London.
For many in the field, this event is the most important gathering of the year. It brings together more than 10,000 professionals from around 140 jurisdictions.
According to Deborah Hampton, the value lies in three areas:
First, the return on investment is exceptionally high. The combination of education, networking, and business development is difficult to replicate elsewhere.
Second, the educational program is extensive. It covers law, policy, technology, and the business of intangible assets.
Third, the networking opportunities are unmatched. The meeting creates a unique environment where a year’s worth of work can be done in a single week.
At the same time, Hampton addressed a sensitive issue: attending without registering. She made it clear that this practice undermines the entire system. Without proper support from participants, events like this would not be possible.
A Clear Message for the Future
If there is one key takeaway from the conversation, it is this:
Intellectual property protection must become more coordinated, more strategic, and more closely aligned with business objectives.
The challenges are growing. Counterfeiting is more sophisticated. Markets are more global. Technology is changing rapidly.
But the opportunity is also clear. By breaking down silos and working together across functions and borders, companies can protect their IP more effectively and create real value.
For IP professionals, this means stepping into a broader role. Not just as legal experts, but as strategic partners in the business.
Rolf Claessen: Today’s guest on the IP Fridays podcast is Deborah Hampton. If you don’t know Deborah, she’s the global brand and enforcement and trademark team leader at the Chemours company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademark Association. Thank you for being on our podcast IP Fridays, Deborah.
Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
Rolf Claessen: So you have been in the field of IP for more than 25 years now. How did you get there and where did it lead to you?
Deborah A. Hampton: I’ve actually been an IP practitioner for 43 years. I started at a small IP firm in New York; it was my first paralegal position, and I fell in love with IP from the very beginning. This field has allowed me to travel the world meeting some amazing and brilliant colleagues as well as high-ranking government, judicial, and IPO officials. I’ve also worked extremely hard to stay abreast of trends, statutes, precedent cases, and practices that enhance the way we do our jobs.
Rolf Claessen: Wow. That sounds really exciting. I didn’t know you’ve been in the field so long. Great to hear that. So I’m personally very interested in the fight against counterfeit goods. Why, in your personal opinion, is it so important to fight counterfeit goods? Maybe you can share your thoughts on why it is important and a little bit about how you do it.
Deborah A. Hampton: There are a number of factors that I always take into consideration when it comes to counterfeit goods. Starting with consumer safety, counterfeits often bypass safety and quality standards, putting consumers at real risk. Then there’s consumer trust; fake goods undermine confidence in brands and legitimate marketplaces, especially online.
Economic harm is another factor; counterfeiting drains revenue from lawful businesses, weakens innovation, and ultimately costs jobs. Smaller businesses (SMEs) are hit the hardest because they lack resources to combat fakes at scale.
The factor that scares me the most is organized crime, as counterfeiting fuels criminal networks and is linked to broader illicit activity. There is also the issue of fair competition, where fake goods distort markets by undercutting compliant, responsible producers. Finally, strong enforcement protects the integrity of the IP system and the trademarks that drive investment, innovation, and growth.
It is important to combat the production, sale, and demand for counterfeit goods. At INTA, our anti-counterfeiting priorities focus on customs and border measures, criminal enforcement, online counterfeiting, and consumer education. Our Anti-Counterfeiting Committee leads initiatives to address the production and sale of fakes by monitoring worldwide developments in treaties and legislation and proposing policy recommendations to the board. We also partner with stakeholders to promote cooperation across agencies and borders.
Additionally, the Unreal Campaign Committee addresses the demand for counterfeit goods by educating young consumers ages 14 to 23 about the importance of brands and the dangers of fakes. I remember being that age and wanting low-priced goods that looked good, but now I realize I probably wasn’t always getting genuine products.
Rolf Claessen: Yes, that helps me explain to friends who buy fake clothes on holiday in Turkey and don’t realize the harm they are doing. You’re also on the presidential task force for unifying IP protection and enforcement strategy. Can you tell us more about who is part of this task force and what the agenda is?
Deborah A. Hampton: When I was nominated to become an officer, I immediately wondered what my presidential task force topic would be and what I would wear for the opening ceremonies. The 2026 task force is titled “Unifying Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Strategy”. The goal is to eliminate value leakage and risk caused by fragmented approaches to IP protection. We want to deliver a unified global operating model that aligns strategy and enforcement, allowing organizations to work smarter and quantify their impact across all jurisdictions.
Many organizations, including my own, currently operate in disconnected silos that sometimes work at cross purposes. The challenge is to maintain internal coordination across all intangible-related aspects. We have many stakeholders—business, security, cybersecurity, outside counsel, customers, the judiciary, and IPOs—all striving for the same goal, but the road we take is not always unified. I hope to build a strong cross-functional partnership focused on protecting all forms of IP, including patents and designs, not just brands.
Rolf Claessen: Right, IP includes patents and designs and everything. Most importantly, you are this year’s INTA president. What is your agenda for the year and what do you want people in the field to realize?
Deborah A. Hampton: As president, I chair the board and steward our strategy and governance. I am also an ambassador, representing INTA globally to IPOs and government officials.
My agenda has three pillars. First is the 2026–2029 Strategic Plan, which is the roadmap for our future. Second is my Presidential Task Force on unifying IP strategies. Third is volunteer mobilization; with a new committee structure in 2026, I want to energize our volunteers and recognize their contributions.
I want people in the field to prioritize mentorship and professional development for the next generation. We need to ensure young practitioners are prepared to lead. I also want them to embrace the unified approach to IP protection we are advocating.
Rolf Claessen: That’s a powerful vision. Thank you so much for sharing your insights and for the work you’re doing with INTA.
Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you again for the opportunity. I really enjoyed the interview