DOCSLIB.ORG

De Octrooibaarheid Van Software

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid Universiteit Gent Academiejaar 2012-13 DE OCTROOIBAARHEID VAN SOFTWARE Masterproef van de opleiding ‘Master in de rechten’ Ingediend door Florian De Rouck Studentennr 00803329 Promotor: Hendrik Vanhees Commissaris : Brecht Lambrech ~~~~ Opgedragen aan Maie & Pepe, Voor hun dagelijks meeleven en bezorgdheid, Wiens wilskracht een inspiratie is voor elke uitdaging, En voor wie dit werk, minstens één keer, hen heeft verhinderd tijdig te eten. ~~~~ Inhoudstafel 0. LIJST MET AFKORTINGEN .......................................................................................................... 1 I. INLEIDING ................................................................................................................................. 1 II. OP ZOEK NAAR DE IDENTITEIT VAN OCTROOIEN OP SOFTWARE ................................................. 3 HOOFDSTUK 1 : Wat is software? ..................................................................................................... 3 §1. De anatomie van een computerprogramma ............................................................................. 3 §2. De auteursrechtelijke ” instructies” .......................................................................................... 5 §3. Het octrooirechtelijke “technisch resultaat” ............................................................................. 7 §3. Overzicht : Matter vs Mind ...................................................................................................... 10 HOOFDSTUK 2 : Het computerprogramma tart de fundamenten van het octrooi ........................ 13 §1. Inleiding ................................................................................................................................... 13 §2. Gevaar van een té ruim toepassingsgebied ............................................................................ 14 §3. Octrooien zijn er voor uitvindingen ......................................................................................... 14 §4. De (Europese) beschermingsvoorwaarden ............................................................................. 16 §5. Een beleidsmatige keuze ......................................................................................................... 18 HOOFDSTUK 3 : Octrooieren in Amerika ......................................................................................... 21 §1. Het eerste softwareoctrooi in de V.S. ..................................................................................... 21 §2.Oorspronkelijke terughoudendheid… ...................................................................................... 22 §3. …Latere omarming .................................................................................................................. 24 §4. Een ommekeer of business as usual? ...................................................................................... 27 §5. Conclusie ................................................................................................................................. 31 HOOFDSTUK 3 : Softwareoctrooien in de economie ....................................................................... 33 §1. Inleiding ................................................................................................................................... 33 §2. Symptomen van een uit de hand gelopen systeem ................................................................ 34 §3. De symptomen onder de loep ................................................................................................. 43 §4. Onderzoek en ontwikkeling ..................................................................................................... 47 §5. Conclusie ................................................................................................................................. 48 III. DE OCTROOIBAARHEID VAN COMPUTERSOFTWARE IN EUROPA ................................................. 50 HOOFDSTUK 1 : Octrooieerbaarheid van software onder het EOV ................................................ 50 §1. Wat werd bedoeld als uitvinding onder artikel 52 EOV? ....................................................... 51 §2. De invloed van het TRIPS ......................................................................................................... 55 §3. Conclusie ................................................................................................................................. 55 I HOOFDSTUK 2 : Een computerprogramma dat geen computerprogramma is? – Een overzicht van de rechtspraak van het EOB ............................................................................................................. 56 §1. Inleiding ................................................................................................................................... 56 §2. VICOM - en de beoordeling uitgaande van de bijdrage tot de gekende technologie ............. 57 §3. IBM en de beoordeling uitgaande van het technisch karakter ............................................... 60 §4. De letterlijke benadering van ‘as such’ ................................................................................... 65 §5. Terug naar de onduidelijkheid................................................................................................. 66 §6. Lex dura sed lex ....................................................................................................................... 68 HOOFDSTUK 3 : DE GEFAALDE RICHTLIJN ........................................................................................ 72 §1. De aanloop .............................................................................................................................. 72 §2. Het voorstel tot richtlijn .......................................................................................................... 76 §3. Falen van de richtlijn ............................................................................................................... 78 HOOFDSTUK 4. Where are we now and where do we go from here? ............................................ 80 IV. Conclusie .......................................................................................................................................... 81 II “Just as with arms, merely because people want them is not sufficient reason for giving them” - Jacob LJ in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors, paragraaf 19. III 0. LIJST MET AFKORTINGEN EOV Europees Octrooiverdrag EOB Europees Octrooibureau V.S.A. Verenigde Staten van Amerika kmo Kleine of middelgrote onderneming WIPO World Intellectual Property Organisation USPTO - PTO United States Patent and Trademark Office BPAI Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences CAFC United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CCPA The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals PTAB Patent Trials and Appeals Board GAO Government Accountability Office DPA Defensive Patent Aggregation R&D Research & Development NPE Non-practicing entity TRIPS Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights CGU In computers-geïmplementeerde uitvinding KvB Kamer van Beroep bij het Europees Octrooibureau GKvB Grote Kamer van Beroep bij het Europees Octrooibureau SME Small and medium-sized enterprises IV I. INLEIDING 1. Toen in oktober 1965 de ‘Programma 101’ door de Italiaanse producent Olivetti werd ge- presenteerd in de New York World fair kon de pers amper haar enthousiasme temperen1. De idee ontstond dat een computer beschikbaar zou kunnen worden voor elk individu. Meer nog, de computer zou gedurende het hele leven centraal komen te staan: als hulpmiddel bij het organiseren van het professionele leven, maar ook ten dienste van het vrijetijdsleven2. De 50 jaar oude advertenties tonen geen twijfel, zelf vanuit het bad of uit een strandstoel aan het zwembad, de computer zou het leven van de toekomst domineren. Anno 2013 is de droom van deze pioniers van de computerindustrie uitgekomen, waarbij de commerciële belangen nog nooit zo groot zijn geweest. Een geheel assortiment van gebruiks- vriendelijke apparaten staat ter beschikking van de consument en de professioneel: zij het desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, e-readers en andere. Spitsvondige technieken domi- neren het dagdagelijkse leven van deze miljarden mensen, dag en nacht. In deze nieuwe we- reld worden de nieuwe uitvindingen, vaak uitgewerkt tot op moleculair of atomair niveau3, gestuurd en gedragen door software. 2. Het is die software die zal blijken een zeer moeilijk te benaderen concept te vormen in de wereld van de conventionele uitvindingen. Software zelf lijkt eindeloos verder te staan dan het algoritme in de tijd van haar grondlegger Augusta Ada Byron Lovelace4 in de eerste helft van de 19de eeuw. En om die reden blijft al jarenlang grote juridische onzekerheid bestaan om haar statuut en haar beschermingsmogelijkheden. Een rechtszekerheid die moeilijk kan ver- oorloofd worden voor een technologiewonder dat onze eeuw domineert. 3. De vraag die zich daarbij stelt is niet alleen of een systeem als octrooibescherming, die terug gaat tot 15e eeuws Venetië, legaal bescherming kan bieden aan uitvindingen die betrekking hebben op software in het kader van de huidige wetgeving, maar ook of dat hoegenaamd passend en wenselijk is. Om die vraag te kunnen beantwoorden is het belangrijk onszelf te dwingen soms een kijk te nemen buiten het strikt juridische. We zullen daarbij nagaan waarom computersoftware afwijkt van de klassieke industriële
Recommended publications
  • International Patent Monetizationand Defensive Strategies

    International Patent Monetizationand Defensive Strategies

    The Eleventh Annual Conference on Featuring Speakers From: • ARM • Finnegan, Henderson, International Patent Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP • Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Monetization and • George Mason University School of Law • Hoffman Eitle Defensive Strategies • Intel Corporation Tips and strategies to maximize the financial value of patent • Kudelski Group portfolios in a changing global legal environment • Morrison & Foerster LLP • Pluritas, LLC • Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP April 11 & 12, 2016 • Reed Smith LLP San Francisco, California • Richardson Oliver Law Group LLP Live Webcast 425 Market Street Available! • StoneTurn Group LLP • Uber Credits: 10.5 CA CLE | 10 WA CLE (call about others) Quick when/where: 8:30 a.m., 425 Market Street Patent Monetization and Defensive Strategies Conference April 11 & 12, 2016 | San Francisco, California 425 Market Street Yes! Please register me: 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 | Seattle, WA 98104 Name: ______________________________________________ 206.567.4490 | fax 206.567.5058 | www.lawseminars.com Email: _______________________________________________ What type of credits do you need? ______________________________ 16PATSCA WS For which state(s)? ________________________________________ Register my colleague: Name: ______________________________________________ Email: _______________________________________________ What type of credits do you need? ______________________________ For which state(s)? ________________________________________ Firm: _______________________________________________
  • THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M

    THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M

    THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M. Rice† Billionaire entrepreneur Naveen Jain wrote that “[s]uccess doesn’t necessarily come from breakthrough innovation but from flawless execution. A great strategy alone won’t win a game or a battle; the win comes from basic blocking and tackling.”1 Companies with innovative ideas must execute patent strategies effectively to navigate the current patent landscape. But in order to develop a defensive strategy, practitioners must appreciate the development of the defensive patent playbook. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”2 Congress attempts to promote technological progress by granting patent rights to inventors. Under the utilitarian theory of patent law, patent rights create economic incentives for inventors by providing exclusivity in exchange for public disclosure of technology.3 The exclusive right to make, use, import, and sell a technology incentivizes innovation by enabling inventors to recoup the costs of development and secure profits in the market.4 Despite the conventional theory, in the 1980s and early 1990s, numerous technology companies viewed patents as unnecessary and chose not to file for patents.5 In 1990, Microsoft had seven utility patents.6 Cisco © 2015 James M. Rice. † J.D. Candidate, 2016, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. 1. Naveen Jain, 10 Secrets of Becoming a Successful Entrepreneur, INC. (Aug. 13, 2012), http://www.inc.com/naveen-jain/10-secrets-of-becoming-a-successful- entrepreneur.html.
  • How to Sustain Technology and Make It Profitable While Avoiding IP Conflicts

    How to Sustain Technology and Make It Profitable While Avoiding IP Conflicts

    How to sustain technology and make it profitable while avoiding IP conflicts Harvard Biotechnology Journal Club meeting, Feb 22nd 2017 Julian Daich, fellow at the Wound Healing and Tissue Engineering Lab, BWH, supervised by Dennis Orgill Patents First established in Venice in 1450, patents are a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention Source: Wikipedia A patent – grants a monopoly over a technological niche – does not guarantee freedom to operate – standard formal structure ● State of the art ● Full description of the invention with examples ● Claims- sentences that define the scope to be enforced a patent application has to show novelty and non obviousness – Empowerment. Patents are a legal basis for priority access to a technological niche – Freedom. Patents are a legal stamp that guarantees protection from other patents Defensive vs offensive ● Big corps dealing with ● Big corps pursuing to many technologies and monopolize a niche parties ● Newcomers attempting ● Newcomers attempting to capture a niche to access to an existing ● Non practitioners niche ● Patent trolls ● Technological standards and frameworks ● Can either accelerate or stop innovation ● Do not harm innovation Patent SWOT ● Strengths ● Weakness – Empower to develop – Discourage making new technology developments or – Encourage to share improvements to already knowledge patented technology ● Opportunities ● Threats – Create new technological – Ambigous patents can niches and markets be used to block technology development or to obtain economical benefits at expenses of authentic innovation Patentleft ● Person A has a patent, and licenses it under a patentleft license.
  • THE EMERGING Intellectual Property Marketplace & the BENEFIT for BUSINESSES and UNIVERSITIES

    THE EMERGING Intellectual Property Marketplace & the BENEFIT for BUSINESSES and UNIVERSITIES

    THE EMERGING Intellectual Property Marketplace & THE BENEFIT FOR BUSINESSES AND UNIVERSITIES Joseph T. Miotke, Partner I. Introduction As illustrated in the table, in 1975 at the tail end of the A new global marketplace trading in a new asset class manufacturing-based economy in the U.S., intangible – intellectual property – has developed under the radar assets including IP comprised only seventeen percent of many businesses and universities, and this new global of the market capitalization of the S&P 500. Fast forward marketplace is evolving faster and faster each day. thirty years, and the above table illustrates the economic Those businesses and universities that are embracing inversion that the U.S. economy has undergone as it this new marketplace and monetizing their intellectual transformed from a manufacturing-based economy to property (“IP”) are racing miles ahead of their a knowledge-based economy. By 2005, eighty percent competitors. This paper off ers an overview of this new of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 now resided global IP monetization marketplace and then drills into in intangibles, with IP as a prominent component. It the mechanics of monetizing IP. comes as no surprise that IP would soon emerge as a new asset class with a unique marketplace off ering new The importance of IP to the United States’, as well as opportunities to generate revenue through IP. the global economy, cannot be overstated. The below table prepared by Ocean Tomo, one of the world’s As used in this paper, “IP monetization” refers to deriving forerunners in monetizing IP, illustrates the importance revenue directly through an intellectual property asset, of IP to the global economy and the rise of IP’s and in the case of patents, without relying upon the prominence over the last thirty-fi ve years.
  • Keys to Effective Patent Monetization

    Keys to Effective Patent Monetization

    Keys to Effective Patent Monetization By Scott W. Doyle and Vishesh Narayen | March 2020 | Association of Corporate Counsel Tampa Bay It is a little-known fact, even among companies with sophisticated practices surrounding their intellectual property, that nearly 90% of U.S. patents are never used to earn a dime. Under-utilization of IP, like the under-utilization of any other asset, should be of concern to any company with a robust patent portfolio. In this article, we discuss a few principles that can guide you to effective monetization of under-utilized patents. Types of Patent Monetization Vehicles There are several methods, or vehicles, for monetizing patents. One common method is through licensing, under which patent owners generally grant rights to interested parties (e.g., competitors and/or potential infringers) to manufacture, use, and/or sell the patented invention in exchange for royalties. Licenses may be exclusive or non- exclusive. Non-exclusive licenses are usually preferred since they can’t be deemed to create market impediments, don’t typically require onerous protection obligations such as indemnities and enforcement clauses, and allow the licensor to license other companies that may grow large market shares later. Such revenue recognition may also occur by collecting royalties as part of a patent pool related to a Technology Standard where risks and rewards are shared with others. However, there are several potential pitfalls that must be investigated before going the standardization route such as very low royalty rates due to patent stacking, for example, and vague and inconsistent licensing rules. When licensing fails or is not an option, a patent owner can consider litigation as a route to monetization.
  • The Giants Among Us*

    The Giants Among Us*

    The Giants Among Us* By Robin Feldman & Tom Ewing1 Abstract The patent world is undergoing a change of seismic proportions. A small number of entities have been quietly amassing vast treasuries of patents. These are not the typical patent trolls that we have come to expect. Rather, these entities have investors such Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony, the World Bank, and non-profit institutions. The largest and most secretive of these has accumulated a staggering 30,000-60,000 patents. Investing thousands of hours of research and using publicly available sources, we have pieced together a detailed picture of these giants and their activities. We consider first the potential positive effects, including facilitating appropriate rewards for forgotten inventors, creating a market to connect innovators with those who can manufacture their inventions, and most important, operating as a form of insurance – something akin to an Anti-Troll defense fund. We turn next to the potential harmful economic effects, including operating as a tax on current production and facilitating horizontal collusion as well as single firm anticompetitive gamesmanship that can raise a rival’s costs. Most important, we note that mass aggregation may not be an activity that society wants to encourage, given that the successful aggregator is likely to be the one that frightens the greatest number of companies in the most terrifying way. We argue that mass aggregators have created a new market for monetization of patents. It is vast, rapidly growing, and largely unregulated. We conclude with some normative recommendations, including that proper monitoring and regulation will require a shift in the definition of markets as well as a different view of corporations and their agents.
  • Patent Transfer and the Bundle of Sticks

    Patent Transfer and the Bundle of Sticks

    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2016 Patent Transfer And The Bundle of Sticks Andrew Michaels The George Washington University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michaels, Andrew C., Patent Transfer and the Bundle of Sticks (December 1, 2016). GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2016-57; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-57. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2883829 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Andrew C. Michaels Patent Transfer DRAFT – Dec. 2016 Patent Transfer And The Bundle of Sticks by Andrew C. Michaels* Abstract In the age of the patent troll, patents are often licensed and transferred. A transferred patent may have been subject to multiple complex license agreements. It cannot be that such a transfer wipes the patent clean of all outstanding license agreements; the licensee must keep the license. But at the same time, it cannot be that the patent transferee becomes a party to a complex and sweeping license agreement – the contract – merely by virtue of acquiring one patent. This article attempts to separate the in personam aspects of a license agreement from its effects on the underlying in rem patent rights, using Hohfeld’s framework of jural relations and the “bundle of sticks” conception of property.
  • Patent Assertion Entity Activity: an Ftc Study

    Patent Assertion Entity Activity: an Ftc Study

    Patent Assertion Entity Activity AN FTC STUDY Federal Trade Commission October 2016 PATENT ASSERTION ENTITY ACTIVITY: AN FTC STUDY A REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION EDITH RAMIREZ Chairwoman MAUREEN K. OHLHAUSEN Commissioner TERRELL MCSWEENY Commissioner Heather Hippsley Chief of Staff David B. Robbins Executive Director Deborah L. Feinstein Director, Bureau of Competition Jessica L. Rich Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection Ginger Zhe Jin Director, Bureau of Economics David Shonka Acting General Counsel Randolph W. Tritell Director, Office of International Affairs Jeanne Bumpus Director, Office of Congressional Relations Tara Isa Koslov Acting Director, Office of Policy Planning Justin Cole Director, Office of Public Affairs Donald S. Clark Secretary of the Commission Andrew I. Gavil Former Director, Office of Policy Planning* Martin S. Gaynor Former Director, Bureau of Economics Francine Lafontaine Former Director, Bureau of Economics Marina Lao Former Director, Office of Policy Planning Report Drafters and Contributors Suzanne Munck, Deputy Director, Office of Policy Planning & Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property Daniel S. Hosken, Deputy Assistant Director, Bureau of Economics John E. Dubiansky, Office of Policy Planning J. Elizabeth Callison, Bureau of Economics Julie A. Carlson, Bureau of Economics Jason O’Connor, Bureau of Economics Elizabeth A. Gillen, Office of Policy Planning Benjamin Chartock, Bureau of Economics Christopher Bryan, Office of Policy Planning Henry C. Su, Office of Chairwoman Edith Ramirez Inquiries
  • Promoting IP Monetization in Developing Countries

    Promoting IP Monetization in Developing Countries

    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Promoting intellectual property monetization in developing countries : a review of issues and strategies to support knowledge-driven growth Ghafele, Roya and Gibert, Benjamin Oxfirst Ltd., University of Oxford July 2012 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40438/ MPRA Paper No. 40438, posted 03 Aug 2012 07:33 UTC Promoting IP Monetization in Developing Countries: A Review of Issues and Strategies to Support Knowledge-driven Growth Roya Ghafele Benjamin Gibert Director Consultant OXFIRST Ltd & OXFIRST Ltd & University of Oxford University of Oxford Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Table of Contents Figures and Tables ........................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 The Intellectual Property Commercialization Divide ...................................................................... 4 The Global Distribution of Licensing Revenue ....................................................................... 4 A Narrowing IP Ownership Divide .......................................................................................... 7 A Growing IP Commercialization Divide .............................................................................. 10 The Monetization of Intellectual Property ....................................................................................
  • Business and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software

    Business and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software

    Business and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software OUCS, 12 January 2009 What we will cover: ● Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks ● Software Patents and FOSS ● Sustainability and Business Models ● Some Project Examples ● Conclusion Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks (1) ● Many within the FOSS community reject the idea that a FOSS licence is a contract ● This is mainly for practical reasons, as contract law varies widely between countries, and is relatively expensive to litigate. ● In comparison IP law and specifically copyright law is more uniform, being the subject of numerous international treaties ● They argue that there is thus no need for explicit acceptance – the licensor either abides by the conditions of the licence or has no licence ● Thus enforcement of licence conditions is traditionally undertaken by asserting copyright infringement (no licence) rather than contractual breach Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks (2) ● Exclusions of warranty and limitations of liability in all current FOSS licences are drafted to be effective under US law. Note: The GNU GPL v3 allows the inclusion of additional, regionalised exclusions and limitations. ● Occasionally the legal basis for the enforceability of FOSS licences is challenged, for example Wallace v. FSF, where it was argued that the GPL was a form of price-fixing and Jacobsen v. Katzer, where it was argued that a FOSS licensor must rely on contract law to enforce their conditions (both failed) ● Many FOSS licences do not specify a jurisdiction in which disputes should be resolved (and some specify inappropriate jurisdictions) Software Patents and FOSS ● Traditionally staff charged with exploiting software IP generated in UK Higher Education have considered the obtaining of software patents.
  • Replace This with the Actual Title Using All Caps

    Replace This with the Actual Title Using All Caps

    UNPACKING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF SHARING 3D DIGITAL DESIGNS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IP AND BEYOND A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Stephanie Michelle Santoso December 2019 © 2019 Stephanie Michelle Santoso UNPACKING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF SHARING DIGITAL DESIGNS AMONG 3D PRINTING USERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IP AND BEYOND Stephanie Michelle Santoso, Ph. D. Cornell University 2019 This doctoral research identifies and examines the challenges that 3D printing users face in creating and sharing digital design files, hardware and documentation related to intellectual property and other critical issues. In particular, this thesis describes the processes that 3D printing users undertake in leveraging Creative Commons (CC) and other approaches to securing IP rights. To investigate these questions, I employ a theoretical lens informed by the social construction of technology, free innovation and recursive publics. Through a combination of 20 open-ended interviews with members of the 3D printing community, the development of three in-depth case studies and additional secondary data analyses, I find that fewer members of the community use Creative Commons than originally expected and that there are persistent gaps in the understanding of how Creative Commons can be useful for the sharing of digital design files, hardware and documentation. While the original goals of this research focused more specifically on the IP issues facing 3D printing users, the overall findings of these activities provide broader insights around how users of a particular technology, in this case 3D printing, engage in different kinds of practices around sharing what they have created and the ways that these behaviors create an active community committed to perpetuating the creation of new knowledge, solutions and objects.
  • Patent Pools: an 'Industry Solution' to SEP Disputes in 5G and Internet Of

    Patent Pools: an 'Industry Solution' to SEP Disputes in 5G and Internet Of

    Department of Law Spring Term 2020 Master Programme in Intellectual Property Law Master Thesis 30 ECTS Patent Pools: An ‘Industry Solution’ to SEP disputes in 5G and Internet of Things A quest for a successful Digital Single Market Author: Satyoki Koundinya Supervisor: Kacper Szkalej Master Thesis Satyoki Koundinya Master Programme in Intellectual Property Law ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my gratitude to Via Licensing Corporation for allowing me to be a part of the esteemed London office, the learnings whereof have culminated into this thesis. I am fortunate to have interacted with and learnt so much from some of the top-notch IP professionals in the world, for which I will be forever indebted. I would like to use this opportunity to convey my deepest regards and gratefulness to Mr. Joseph Siino, President, Via Licensing Corp., who took out his time despite his extraordinary work schedule, to patiently hear my preliminary thoughts and give his very valuable insights and provide a starting point of my research of patent pools being an ‘industry solution’. I am extremely thankful to Ms. Helene Jay, Director, Sales & Licensing Programs, Via Licensing Corp. for giving me this opportunity of internship, facilitating an easy and comfortable transition thereinto, taking timely updates and helping me course correct at every stage. My heartfelt gratitude to her generosity and kindness. I shall forever be indebted to Mr. Sharaz Gill, Sr. Licensing Counsel, Dr. Deepal Naidu, Sr. Patent Attorney and Ms. Liz Weber, Sr. Public Relations Manager at Via Licensing Corp., my most wonderful guides and persons I have ever met, who gave me the space to improve my understanding, who patiently heard me and took my questions, despite their busy schedules and motivated me to apply the principles of law and technology into this emerging field.