DOCSLIB.ORG

Journal of the Licensing Executives Society

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DECEMBER 2016 LES NOUVELLESDECEMBER 2016 lleess NNoouvuveelllleess Translations JOURNAL OF THE LICENSING EXECUTIVES SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL Patent Mapping Strategies Patent MappingCopyright IP Legal advice Renewal Management Descriptions Domain Names Domain Names Attorneys Flat fee prosecution Descriptions Patent Annuities IP Contracts Flat fee prosecution Copyright Domain Names RenewalEP Management - Validation BrandsIP Contracts IP Due Diligence Software Solutions Filings Copyright PCT - Nationalizations PatentPCT - Nationalizations Seminars IP Due Diligence Domain Names Trademark Descriptions Descriptions Filings Mapping Descriptions Strategies Renewals Filings Patent Mapping Copyright Patent Mapping Prior artDescriptions searches Volume LI No. 4 Designs Copyright IP Legal advice December 2016 Brands Software Solutions IP Contracts Trademarks Docketing EP - Validation DIAMS iQ DIAMS iQPatents Trademarks IP Contracts Trademarks Seminars Software EP - Validation Copyright Portfolio Analysis Recordal ServicesDesigns Trademarks Patent Mapping Portfolio Analysis Portfolio Analysis PCT - Nationalizations DIAMS iQ Patents Descriptions Flat fee prosecution Patent Mapping Software Solutions Solutions artPrior searches Flat fee prosecution Strategies Designs TranslationsDomain NamesMonetization Patent Filings Mapping IP Legal advice Copyright Translations Copyright Brands Trademarks Seminars Brands Filings Contracts Designs Designs Domains Copyright StrategiesTrademarks Prior art searches IP Legal advice Descriptions Filings Domain Names Brands Copyright Trademarks Brands Attorneys Annuity services Diams iQ Diams Descriptions Copyright Trademarks PCT - Nationalizations IP Contracts Strategies Descriptions Prior art searches Filings Descriptions Flat fee prosecution Trademarks Trademark Strategies Renewal IP DocketingEP - Validation Consulting Management Copyright DIAMS iQ Renewals Advancing the Business of Intellectual Property Globally Copyright Filings Patent Annuities Patents Brands IP Contracts Translations EP - ValidationFilings Software Solutions EP - Validation IP Due Diligence Patent Annuities IP Contracts Renewal IPManagement Docketing Copyright Filings Descriptions PCT - Nationalizations Domain Names Translations Designs Filings Writing Licenses And Other Agreements—Some Tips Based On Over Fifty Years Prior art searches Trademark DIAMS iQ IP Contracts Renewals PatentsSoftware Solutions Strategies Copyright IP Docketing Translations Designs IP Legal advice DIAMS iQ Of Mistakes And Confusion (Mostly Others’, But A Few Of Mine) Filings Domain Names Descriptions Copyright Filings Brands SoftwareBrands Solutions EP - ValidationConsulting Designs CopyrightFilings Descriptions Patent Patent Annuities Docketing Mapping Brands ROBERT S. BRAMSON — Page 204 IP Contracts Trademarks Prior artPrior searches Software Solutions Flat fee prosecution fee Flat PCTNationalizations - IP Legal advice IP Legal IP Due Diligence Patents Consulting Software Solutions Portfolio Analysis iQ DIAMS DIAMS iQ DIAMS Translations An Experience-Based Look At The Licensing Practices That Drive The Cellular Consulting IP DueCopyright Diligence DIAMSStrategies iQ IP Contracts Designs EP - Validation Filings Patent Mapping Prior art searches Valuation Patent Patents JOURNAL OF THE LICENSING EXECUTIVES SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL Communications Industry: Whole Portfolio/Whole Device Licensing Flat fee prosecution DIAMS iQ Validation - EP PCT - Nationalizations Patents Copyright Patent Annuities Designs Seminars Filings IP MARVIN BLECKER, TOM SANCHEZ AND ERIC STASIK — Page 231 Flat fee prosecution Software Solutions Descriptions Patents EP - Validation - EP Trademarks Flat fee prosecution fee Flat Strategies IP Due Diligence Due IP Translations Seminars Trademarks Patents Brands Flat fee prosecution Domain Names Domain DIAMS iQ IP Legal advice The Practicalities And Pitfalls Of The Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Unit Brands Domain Names Doctrine: A Review Of Teece And Sherry Filings DIAMS iQ DIAMS Filings ANNE LAYNE-FARRAR — Page 244 PCT - Nationalizations To What Extent Are University IP Policies Legally Binding? Part 2: Students PHILIP MENDES — Page 249 Application of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Principles To Patent Freedom To Operate (FTO) Analysis: A Novel “IP-RM” System GILLIAN M. FENTON — Page 256 NSFW: Naked Licensing And Uncontrolled Trademark Use LUKE S. CURRAN — Page 266 Licensing In Cosmetics: A Practical Approach JEAN-YVES LEGENDRE — Page 269 Opportunities And Challenges For Expanding Technology Transfer In United Arab Emeriates (UAE) AHMED ALOSI, PH.D., JOHN FRASER AND MICHAEL J. MARTIN — Page 274 Allocating Risks And Rewards In Collaborative Agreements Using The Financial Structure MATTHEW W. SAGAL AND GENE SLOWINSKI — Page 282 Bankruptcy-Related IP Valuations:Consider The Use Of Market Approach ROBERT F. REILLY — Page 289 Patent Royalties And Competition Law: The Genentech Judgment Of The Court Of Justice Of The European Union PATRICIA CAPPUYNS AND JOZEFIEN VANHERPE — Page 293 Recent U.S. Court Decisions And Developments Affecting Licensing JOHN PAUL AND D. BRIAN KACEDON — Page 296 $62.50/Issue Order your copy today! Guide to Intangible Asset Valuation by Robert F. Reilly and Robert P. Schweihs This 700-page book, published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, explores the disciplines of intangible asset valuation and analysis, economic damages, “A penny for their thoughts!” and transfer price analysis. Guide to Intangible Asset Valuation Maybe that’s crossed your own mind once or twice examines the economic attributes and the economic influences when dealing with EPO examiners and their search reports that create, monetize, and transfer the value of intangible assets and communications? and intellectual property. Illustrative examples are provided throughout the book, and Join us for the EPO’s outstanding training opportunity detailed examples are presented for each generally accepted for patent search professionals: intangible asset valuation approach and method. Available for purchase for $129.50 plus shipping from Search Matters 2017 www.willamette.com/books_intangibles.html. Robert Reilly and Bob Schweihs are managing 29-31 March directors of Willamette Management Associates, an Munich, Germany intangible asset and intellectual property analysis, Willamette Management Associates business valuation, forensic analysis, and financial www.epo.org/search-matters www.willamette.com opinion firm. Tips on Writing Licenses And Agreements Writing Licenses And Other Agreements1—Some Tips2 Based On Over Fifty Years Of Mistakes And Confusion (Mostly Others’, But A Few Of Mine) By Robert S. Bramson The Skills Required for Negotiating and tional law and many other areas of the Drafting Contracts ■ law which may apply Robert S. Bramson, rafting any sort of agreement requires three Bramson & Pressman, skillsets. Just being a smart lawyer isn’t enough. • Not understanding all DThe skillsets are: business implications of Partner, • Drafting skills—Writing a clear, concise, accurate the agreement terms Philadelphia, PA, USA and comprehensive agreement In this paper, I will give E-mail: [email protected] • Legal skills—Understanding all of the legal prin- you some tips and exam- ciples which go into negotiating, drafting and en- ples to guide you in draft- forcing a license agreement—contract law, patent ing better agreements. However, there is a lot about law, labor law and bankruptcy law and, of course, drafting and negotiating agreements that can only be much more learned by experience. I hope that this sharing of my experience will help. • Business skills—Knowing and understanding the business area for which the agreement is being The Term Sheet drafted and the potential business3 implications of I often like to start drafting with a Term Sheet, if the transaction it is a negotiated agreement (as opposed to starting The major problems in agreement drafting are: with one party’s form, as is sometimes unavoidable • Ambiguity when dealing with a behemoth company). Writing a draft agreement first often loses issues in the verbiage, –Such as circular definitions and redundancy— makes review more complex and therefore harder, and saying the same thing different ways—which cre- wastes time when you have to change language. ate ambiguity • Undue complexity (creating ambiguity) I like to include in the Term Sheet all of the defini- tions I want to use in the agreement. Once all defini- • Verbosity (creating ambiguity) tions and basic terms are agreed in the Term Sheet, • Just plain sloppy language writing the first draft is more focused, much easier and • Not understanding all applicable aspects of con- much less likely to be contentious. tract, labor, IP, bankruptcy, (sometimes) interna- A Term Sheet usually is not intended to create a bind- ing contract. Therefore, the Term Sheet should be stated 1. This paper was initially written for “license agreements” to be non-binding. See A/S Apothekernes Laboratorium only. However, many of the principles applicable to license agree- v. I.M.C. Chemicals, 873 F.2d 155 (7th Cir. 1989) (re ments are also applicable to other agreements, so I have re-writ- letters of intent). Caveat: It is not always clear whether ten the paper accordingly. However, I have retained exemplary a document is a letter of intent or a binding contract, so provisions regarding license agreements when that seemed use- it is desirable to state that “(t)his letter is a statement of ful. For example, an option as to a patent license
Recommended publications
  • Journal of the Licensing Executives Society International

    Journal of the Licensing Executives Society International

    MARCH 2013 2013 SEMINAR SERIES lesles NouvellesNouvelles JOURNALJOURNAL OF OF THE THE LICENSING LICENSING EXECUTIVES EXECUTIVES SOCIETY SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL L L U.S. Trademark L Summer Patent Advanced Patent Practice Seminar Seminar & Licensing Seminar Volume XLVIII No. 1 March 2013 April 8 - 12, 2013 June 5 - 28, 2013 September 23 - October 4, 2013 A one week seminar which addresses all aspects This three and a half week seminar A two week seminar focusing on advanced of trademark practice before the United States covers all major areas of U.S. patent topics in U.S. patent law which includes LES NOUVELLES Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the law, beginning with an overview of the workshops and problem solving in order to courts, including the preparation of trademark U.S. patent system and moving on to illustrate the more advanced concepts with applications, practice before the Trademark Trial more complex subjects such as patent regard to prosecution, claim interpretation, and Advancing the Business of Intellectual Property Globally and Appeal Board, licensing, inter partes matters prosecution, infringement litigation, validity and infringement issues. Participants including opposition and cancellation and interference practice. Includes learn how to modify and determine the scope proceedings, and the enforcement of trademark practical problems and discussion of of a granted U.S. patent, as well as how to Recent Rulings On The Entire Market Value Rule And Impacts On rights in the federal and state courts. recent cases where applicable. address significant licensing issues. Patent Litigation And Valuation ERIC PHILLIPS AND DAVID BOAg — Page 1 Visit www.bskb.comfo r further seminar details.
  • The Spotlight on Patent Licensing by Patent Aggregators Niccolò Galli – ESR 3 EIPIN-IS Research Paper No

    The Spotlight on Patent Licensing by Patent Aggregators Niccolò Galli – ESR 3 EIPIN-IS Research Paper No

    Innovation Society Research Paper Series Patent Aggregation in Europe: The Spotlight on Patent Licensing by Patent Aggregators Niccolò Galli – ESR 3 EIPIN-IS Research Paper No. 20-03 EIPIN Innovation Society Partner organisations (March 2017 - January 2021) European IP Institutes Network Cooperation among IP Institutions and students in Europe since 1999. EIPIN Innovation Society • Multidisciplinary and holistic research programme on role of IP in the innovative lifecycle • Co-supervision of doctoral research leading to joint doctorate degrees from two EIPIN partners • Tailor-made training programme prepares a new type of IP researcher who is able to ascertain and articulate the complexities of the IP system. IP as a complex adaptive system Research results • IP developed from a mere legal title • 15 PhD theses, published as into a complex adaptive system monographs • IP functions as a • International peer-reviewed articles - Business tool for value creation • Presentations at international - Vehicle for investment conferences - Relationship between right holders, • Bi-yearly conferences on the four users and society areas of research • Ambition: to enhance Europe’s capacity • Training activities on methodology, to foster innovation-based sustainable research and transferrable skills economic growth globally • Presentations and publications on • Research objective: to provide reliable establishment and management conclusions on how to deal with the of joint doctoral degree structures adaptive complexities of innovation cycles that secure economic benefits and uphold justice in the innovation society. Patent Aggregation in Europe: The Spotlight on Patent Licensing by Patent Aggregators Niccolò Galli* Abstract Patent aggregation involves the use of patents as assets rather than as technology inputs or technology-transfer instruments.
  • Leveraging Law Department Metrics to Manage Costs and Improve Performance

    Leveraging Law Department Metrics to Manage Costs and Improve Performance

    ACC’s 2008 Annual Meeting Informed. In-house. Indispensable. Tuesday, October 21 11:00 am-12:30 pm 509 Metrics Mania: Leveraging Law Department Metrics to Manage Costs and Improve Performance Arvie J. Anderson Patent Counsel and Six Sigma Black Belt Eli Lilly & Company Eric Chung Director of Corporate Legal Affairs Atmel Corporation Mary B. Clark Vice President Law and Deputy General Counsel LexisNexis Miguel R. Rivera Sr. Associate General Counsel Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated This material is protected by copyright. Copyright © 2008 various authors and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Materials may not be reproduced without the consent of ACC. Reprint permission requests should be directed to ACC’s Legal Resources Department at ACC: 202/293-4103, ext. 338; [email protected] ACC's 2008 Annual Meeting Informed. In-house. Indispensable. Prior to joining LexisNexis, Ms. Clark practiced law as corporate counsel and in private Faculty Biographies litigation practice. Arvie Anderson Ms. Clark has shared her expertise at numerous conferences hosted by professional organizations such as the American Bar Association, LegalTech, and the Association of Arvie Anderson is a patent attorney at Eli Lilly and Company in Indianapolis. For the Corporate Counsel, and was selected by her peers as a Northern California Super Lawyer past two years, Mr. Anderson has been a Six Sigma Black Belt for the law division. He is in business law. responsible for legal process improvement projects across the department in areas such as budgeting, IT utilization, patent procurement, and litigation cost management. Beginning Ms. Clark is a graduate of the University of Kansas School of Law.

  • Limiting Downstream Effects of Patent Licensing Activity in Software And

    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 91 Issue 1 Congressional Dysfunction and Executive Lawmaking During the Obama Article 14 Administration 1-29-2016 Limiting Downstream Effects of Patent Licensing Activity in Software and Electronics: An Argument for Alienability of Patent Licenses to Licensees' Business Successors Anna A. Onley IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Anna A. Onley, Limiting Downstream Effects of Patent Licensing Activity in Software and Electronics: An Argument for Alienability of Patent Licenses to Licensees' Business Successors, 91 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 361 (2016). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol91/iss1/14 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 37288-ckt_91-1 Sheet No. 188 Side A 12/28/2015 14:43:02 13 ONLEY FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 12/24/2015 9:25 PM LIMITING DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS OF PATENT LICENSING ACTIVITY IN SOFTWARE AND ELECTRONICS: AN ARGUMENT FOR ALIENABILITY OF PATENT LICENSES TO LICENSEES’ BUSINESS SUCCESSORS ANNA A. ONLEY* Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 362 THE PROBLEM ...............................................................
  • Drafting Patent License Agreements

    Drafting Patent License Agreements

    Detailed Contents Preface ............................................................................................ v Preface to the First Edition ........................................................... vii Summary Contents ........................................................................ ix Contents of Forms .......................................................................... xxiii 1 Some Premises and Commentary ................................... 1 1.00 Orientation and a Disclaimer of Legal Completeness ............................................................... 1 1.01 License Agreements as a Separate Topic .................. 2 1.02 A Pessimistic Prognosis Concerning Certainty of Draftsmanship ......................................................... 4 A. The Semantic Problem .......................................... 4 B. Uncertainty Through Human Frailty .................. 6 1. Ambiguity ......................................................... 6 2. Vagueness ......................................................... 8 3. Misplaced Modifier .......................................... 10 1.03 Contra Preferentum .................................................... 12 2 Legal Principles ................................................................... 15 2.01 Evaluating the Legal Nature of the Subject Matter .......................................................................... 15 A. The Scope of a Patent ........................................... 16 B. The Scope of Unpatented Technology .................
  • University of Copenhagen

    University of Copenhagen

    Study on a collaboration system for commercialisation of intellectual property in the EU Radauer, Alfred ; Dudenbostel, Tobias; Bostyn, Sven; Buchtela, Georg; Patzold, Rainer; Langenberg, Lars Publication date: 2019 Document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Document license: Other Citation for published version (APA): Radauer, A., Dudenbostel, T., Bostyn, S., Buchtela, G., Patzold, R., & Langenberg, L. (2019). Study on a collaboration system for commercialisation of intellectual property in the EU. European Commission. Download date: 03. okt.. 2021 Study on a collaboration system for commercialisation of intellectual property in the EU Final Report 15 October 2019 Prepared by: Alfred Radauer, Tobias Dudenbostel (Technopolis) Sven Bostyn Georg Buchtela Rainer Pätzold, Lars Langenberg (Pumacy AG) The authors would like to thank the following experts for their advice on the report: Angela Siegling, Peter Pawlek, Udo Gennari EUROPEAN COMMISSION Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) Department A – COSME, H2020 SME and EMFF Unit A.1- COSME DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 © European Union, 2019 Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Print ISBN 978-92-9202-694-3 doi:10.2826/692284 EA-02-19-894-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-9202-693-6 doi:10.2826/460031 EA-02-19-894-EN-N Study on a collaboration system for commercialisation of intellectual property in the EU TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..............................................................................................
  • Hedging Your Intellectual Property Bets

    Hedging Your Intellectual Property Bets

    Hedge funds and IP Hedging your intellectual property bets IPOffering’s Richard Ehrlickman explains why twinning hedge funds with IP will become a more common practice Remember the IBM Selectric? Introduced in 1961, it was that typewriter that used an interchangeable “golf ball” element instead of individual levers for each letter or character. And despite its name, it was mostly mechanical and relied only slightly on electricity. In fact, its electric functions could also be performed with a hand crank. The Selectric was one of the last great mechanical patented inventions Picture: Shutterstock Picture: of the 20th century. For 15 years, IBM enjoyed a monopoly on typewriters with the “ball” element because of its patent. Only in the late 1970s, and useful arts”. Most businesses that develop new technologies patent when IBM’s patent expired, did other companies have a chance to produce them and use those patents to develop new products, open up new similar typewriters – but none came close to IBM’s success. markets, increase their competiveness, and grow their sales and profits. Senator Patrick Leahy even made reference to the Selectric during License Patents. Enterprises either license or cross license, and debate on the legislation that became the America Invents Act, “A universities often license patents, to generate additional revenue in patent system developed for a 1952 economy – before the internet, areas they are currently not practising. This process is often referred to before cellphones, before computers, before photocopiers, even before as “carrot licensing” as compared to “stick licensing” (or enforcement the IBM Selectric typewriter – needs to be reconsidered in light of 21st – more on that below).
  • Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets– an Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel

    Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets– an Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel

    By in-house counsel, for in-house counsel.SM InfoPAKSM Intellectual Property Primer: Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets– An Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel Third Edition Sponsored by: Association of Corporate Counsel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 tel 202.293.4103, fax 202.293.4701 www.acc.com 2 Intellectual Property Primer: Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets: An Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel Intellectual Property Primer: Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets– An Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel Third Edition July 2008 Provided by the Association of Corporate Counsel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. 202.293.4103 Fax 202.293.4701 www.acc.com This InfoPAKSM is designed to provide corporate counsel with a general overview of intellectual property and to suggest useful practices for the handling of intellectual property issues in the corporate setting. This information should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on specific facts, or representative of the views of ACC or any of its lawyers, unless so stated. This is not intended as a definitive statement on the subject but a tool, providing practical informa- tion for the reader. We hope that you find this material useful. Thank you for contacting the Association of Corporate Counsel. This material was prepared, compiled, and updated by the Intellectual Property attorneys of Dickstein Shapiro LLP (www.dicksteinshapiro.com), edited by Kenneth W. Brothers (First, Sec- ond, and Third Editions) and Megan Woodworth (Third Edition), at the direction of the Asso- ciation of Corporate Counsel.
  • ESSENTIALS of Intellectual Property

    ESSENTIALS of Intellectual Property

    FPREF 12/13/2010 11:21:42 Page 18 FFIRS 01/12/2011 10:49:45 Page 1 ESSENTIALS of Intellectual Property Second Edition FFIRS 01/12/2011 10:49:46 Page 2 ESSENTIALS SERIES The Essentials Series was created for busy business advisory and corporate professionals. The books in this series were designed so that these busy professionals can quickly acquire knowl- edge and skills in core business areas. Each book provides need-to-have fundamentals for those professionals who must: Get up to speed quickly, because they have been promoted to a new position or have broadened their responsibility scope Manage a new functional area Brush up on new developments in their area of responsibility Add more value to their company or clients Books in this series include: Essentials of Accounts Payable by Mary S. Schaeffer Essentials of Balanced Scorecard by Mohan Nair Essentials of Business Ethics by Denis Collins Essentials of Business Process Outsourcing by Thomas N. Duening and Rick L. Click Essentials of Capacity Management by Reginald Tomas Yu-Lee Essentials of Cash Flow by H.A. Schaeffer, Jr. Essentials of Corporate and Capital Formation by David H. Fater Essentials of Corporate Fraud by Tracy L. Coenen Essentials of Corporate Governance by Sanjay Anand Essentials of Corporate Performance Measurement by George T. Friedlob, Lydia L.F. Schleifer, and Franklin J. Plewa, Jr. Essentials of Cost Management by Joe and Catherine Stenzel Essentials of Credit, Collections, and Accounts Receivable by Mary S. Schaeffer Essentials of CRM: A Guide to Customer Relationship Management by Bryan Bergeron Essentials of Enterprise Compliance by Susan D.
  • Patent Assertion Entities in Europe Their Impact on Innovation and Knowledge Transfer in ICT Markets

    Patent Assertion Entities in Europe Their Impact on Innovation and Knowledge Transfer in ICT Markets

    Patent Assertion Entities in Europe Their impact on innovation and knowledge transfer in ICT markets Europe Economics Editors: Nikolaus Thumm, Garry Gabison (Joint Research Centre) 2016 EUR 28145 EN This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy- making process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. Contact information European Commission, Joint Research Centre Address: Edificio Expo. c/Inca Garcilaso, 3. 41092 Seville (Spain) E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +34 954488211 JRC Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC103321 EUR 28145 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-79-62903-7 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2791/134702 Print ISBN 978-92-79-62902-0 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2791/039681 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 © European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. How to cite: European Economics; Patent Assertion Entities in Europe; Eds: Nikolaus Thumm, Garry Gabison (Joint Research Centre), EUR 28145 EN; doi:10.2791/134702 All images © European Union 2016 Title Patent Assertion Entities in Europe Abstract Patent assertion has become a common practice in shaping the balance between technology creation and technology dissemination in the Information and Communication Industry (ICT). The importance of this practice for the functioning of ICT markets has given rise to new entities that enforce patents but do not utilise the patented technology, commonly referred to as patent assertion entities (PAEs).
  • Study on Patents and the Public Domain12

    Study on Patents and the Public Domain12

    E CDIP/4/3 REV./STUDY/INF/2 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: APRIL 27, 2011 STUDY ON PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN12 1 The views expressed in the study are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the WIPO Secretariat or its Member States. 2 The Patents and the Public Domain part of the study was prepared by Mr. Jeremy Phillips, Professorial Fellow, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of London, London, United Kingdom. The Development Dimension: National Practices and Experiences part was prepared by: A. Mr. McLean Sibanda, Chief Executive Officer, The Innovation Hub, Pretoria, South Africa; B. Mr. Hossam El Saghir, Professor of Commercial Law and General Director of the, Regional Institute for Intellectual Property, Helwan University, and Attorney at Law, Cairo, Egypt; C. Mr. Ernesto Rengifo García, Professor, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia; D. Mrs. Olena Pavlina Orlyuk, Director, Scientific Research Institute of Intellectual Property, Kyiv, Ukraine; and E. Mr. Calab Gabriel, Senior Partner, K&S Partners, Intellectual Property Attorneys, Gurgaon, National Capital Region, India. CDIP/4/3 Rev./STUDY/INF/2. page i CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 2 I. PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 7 2. The notion of “public domain” in relation to the patent system.................................
  • Patent Assertion Entities in Europe Their Impact on Innovation and Knowledge Transfer in ICT Markets

    Patent Assertion Entities in Europe Their Impact on Innovation and Knowledge Transfer in ICT Markets

    Patent Assertion Entities in Europe Their impact on innovation and knowledge transfer in ICT markets Europe Economics Editors: Nikolaus Thumm, Garry Gabison (Joint Research Centre) 2016 EUR 28145 EN This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy- making process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. Contact information European Commission, Joint Research Centre Address: Edificio Expo. c/Inca Garcilaso, 3. 41092 Seville (Spain) E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +34 954488211 JRC Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC103321 EUR 28145 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-79-62903-7 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2791/134702 Print ISBN 978-92-79-62902-0 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2791/039681 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 © European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. How to cite: European Economics; Patent Assertion Entities in Europe; Eds: Nikolaus Thumm, Garry Gabison (Joint Research Centre), EUR 28145 EN; doi:10.2791/134702 All images © European Union 2016 Title Patent Assertion Entities in Europe Abstract Patent assertion has become a common practice in shaping the balance between technology creation and technology dissemination in the Information and Communication Industry (ICT). The importance of this practice for the functioning of ICT markets has given rise to new entities that enforce patents but do not utilise the patented technology, commonly referred to as patent assertion entities (PAEs).