Search results

Trade in counterfeit products has been expanding continuously. The emergence of the internet, the process of globalisation as well as the increase of digitalisation have enabled counterfeit products to infiltrate legitimate supply chains, causing harm not only to national economies but also to holders of intellectual property rights (IPR). In this chapter, we analyse the possible solutions that holders of IP rights and their legal representatives have in their fight against the online sale of counterfeit products. To elaborate on this issue, first, we explain the legislation on an international level for IPR protection and its specific characteristics. We explain the conventions on the protection of IPR that are governed by the World Intellectual Protection Organisation (WIPO) and the provisions of the TRIPS (Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement governed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). We also analyse the national legislative procedure of protecting and enforcing IPR in North Macedonia to explain a possible solution to fight online counterfeit trade. As a case study of this chapter, we explain the work of the Online Enforcement Programme of REACT as a not-for-profit organisation with over 30 years of experience in the fight against counterfeit trade and the challenges that they have in fighting against the online sale of counterfeit products. Since IP law is territorial in its nature as a conclusion, we suggest that a more centralised approach is needed in the fight against the online sale of counterfeit products.

Studies have indicated that international innovation collaboration has promoted technology transfer and knowledge spillover between countries. The conclusion of various international intellectual property (IP) treaties has played an essential role in optimizing the international innovation and collaboration environment. This study investigates the effect of IP treaties on international innovation collaboration and whether international IP treaties can promote collaboration between a country and other economies in the world.

After collecting and extracting the patent record data from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), a final dataset of 3,213,626 cooperative patents and 465,236 pairs of collaborations between two countries or regions is established. Based on the international patent collaboration data of 192 countries during 1976–2017, the changes in patent collaboration indicators after these countries joined 23 IP treaties are analyzed.

International IP treaties have significantly increased the number of patent cooperation countries of a country and its importance in international cooperation networks. The role of IP treaties is more manifested by the increased opportunities for a country's international innovation cooperation than its influence on global innovation; this is of extreme significance for developing countries to introduce advanced technologies.

Ginarte and Park (1997) have confirmed that IP treaties have helped to raise the level of IP protection. In this study, the increase in the degree centrality of the international innovation network is evidence of IP treaties to promote innovation cooperation. For a developing country, joining an intellectual property treaty may strengthen intellectual property protection and optimize its own international innovation cooperation methods.

This chapter suggests that, while researchers and teachers of university technology transfer often think exclusively in terms of patents and the Bayh-Dole Act, we ought to adopt a more nuanced view of intellectual property rights (IPRs). In the text, I discuss the primary non-patent types of intellectual property (IP) protection, copyright, trademark, and trade secret, and argue that while patents are normally the “default” position when we think about protecting technologies and profiting from them, evidence suggests that patents are among the least important means of capturing value from innovation. Moreover, I suggest that while many consider that IP protections act as substitutes for one another, thinking about IPRs as complements is a more relevant approach to this issue. Adopting this more nuanced view better reflects reality and does a superior job of alerting our audiences to the opportunities available in the technology commercialization process.

This chapter provides evidence on how young technology startups are employing intellectual property (IP) protection when innovating and competing in the United States. Although researchers and teachers of university technology transfer often think only in terms of patents and the Bayh-Dole Act, this chapter suggests that adopting a more nuanced view of IP rights is appropriate. After reviewing the primary non-patent types of IP protection available in the U.S. (copyright, trademark, and trade secret), we explain that while patents are often considered the strongest protection, for some entrepreneurs – particularly those operating in the U.S. software and Internet sectors – patents may be the least important means of capturing value from innovation. We present evidence from the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey to demonstrate that IP is used by U.S. startups in very different ways, and to different effects, across technology sectors and other company-specific characteristics. Contrary to the common assumption in academic discourse, we show that different forms of IP protection often serve as complements, rather than substitutes.

This paper examines the evolution of Intellectual Property (IP) commercialization in historical perspective. IP Law imposes an incentive structure that determines the extent of societal investment in those assets. From their inception at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, IP has expanded due to the introduction of new technologies. Property rights allocation over these assets has traditionally been assigned to governments centralizing the recognition of such property. For a long period of time, government intervention was critical to allow IP commercialization; hence, the political economy of IP was dictated by the prevailing ideology of policymakers in favor or against market transactions. The resulting clash of ideologies has marked the position of developing countries seeking exclusions from open IP commercialization to obtain temporary relief from foreign competition of technology producing countries, as well as that of industrialized countries, seeking to export their technologies overseas. The emergence of blockchain technology, as a decentralized transaction exchange protocol that makes intermediary centralized institutions (i.e. governments) certifying IP irrelevant over a large portion of intellectual property (i.e., trade secrets and copyrights) will create revolutionary institutions facilitating IP commercialization, such as NFTs. We examine this historical evolution in the context of legal institutions governing intellectual property transactions and technology transfer.

Save Ideas Ltd is an Australia-based company and Internet portal for free and instant double protection of intellectual property (ideas of innovators and anyone), one with the Time Certificate stamp and another one based on blockchain technology. Blockchain protection is being upgraded by Initial Coin Offering (ICO) with process of issuing own crypto tokens for the expansion of Save Ideas and at the same time for funding the most promising registered ideas. Process of ICO as the way of financing will be presented in the case of Save Ideas in this chapter.

Globalization should provide firms with an opportunity to leverage their know-how and reputation across countries to create value. However, it remains challenging for them to actually capture that value using traditional Intellectual Property (IP) tools. In this paper, we document the strong growth in patents, trademarks, and industrial designs used by firms to protect their IP globally. We then show that IP protection remains fragmented; the quality of IP applications might be questionable; and developing a comprehensive IP footprint worldwide is very costly. Growing numbers of applications are causing backlogs and delays in numerous Patent and Trademarks Offices and litigation over IP rights is expensive, with an uncertain outcome. Moreover, local governments can succeed in transferring value to local firms and influencing global market positions by using IP laws and other regulations. In essence, the analysis shows a global IP environment that leaves much to be desired. Despite these challenges, there are successful strategies to capture value from know-how and reputation by leveraging an array of IP tools. These strategies have important implications for management practice, as we discuss in our concluding section. Global companies will need to organize cross-functional value capture teams focused on appropriating value from their know-how and reputation by combining different institutional, market, and nonmarket tools, depending on the institutional and business environment in a particular region.

Since 2015, China has made efforts to reform its intellectual property rights (IPR) system to better protect and stimulate innovation. These reforms are a result of the demand for more stringent intellectual property (IP) protection from China’s domestic, innovative industries and a measure to ease the pressure exerted by its foreign trading partners, particularly against the background of the US-China trade dispute that started at the beginning of 2018. This paper summarizes these reforms and their implications.

This paper combines a variety of sources, including academic articles, government websites, news reports, industry surveys and expert opinions, to offer insights in China’s IPR system and its recent reforms.

This paper summarizes and discusses (1) the state’s law amendments, including the 2015 amendment of the “Law on Promoting the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements”, the second amendment of the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” with regard to trade secret protection, the fourth amendment of the “Patent Law”, and the legislations and regulations addressing the criticisms of the US administration over China’s so-called “forced” technology transfer policies; (2) the establishment of the specialized IP courts and tribunals since 2014; (3) the restructuring of the State IP Office; and (4) the issuing of an “Outline for Building an IPR Powerhouse (2021–2035)”.

This paper highlights China’s efforts to make its IPR system stronger and more just. It also discusses international observers’ reactions and pinpoints specific areas for further improvement.

Based upon the review of theoretical frameworks and the author's practical experiences in intellectual property (IP) management, the purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical framework which intends to accord the current development of IP management and strategy in China. It is constituted of two engines, namely innovation engine and intellectual property engine which are related closely to management of technology – a strategic instrument in creating wealth and prosperity. The latter is also stated “5‐IPs” management pattern, i.e. intellectual property advantages, intellectual property economy, intellectual property strategy, intellectual property talents, and intellectual property culture as essential factors.

Briefly, elaborating basic concepts and main characteristics of “5‐IPs”, this work discusses the theoretical framework and the application of these pattern in Henan Province of PRC.

This work presents a whole picture of how the policy makers in Henan Province developed and implemented its IP management strategy. Theoretically, this work presents a strategic framework, which intends to create an innovation model and enables the decision‐makers and IP practitioners to make more appropriate arrangement when addressing IP related issues.

This study presents the crucial tenets of the strategic framework, which underpins the identification of the appropriateness and effectiveness of China's intellectual property right (IPR) strategy. The distinctiveness of the study lies in: advancing the current literature on the establishment of IPR system in China; presenting a case study of Henan Province in terms of how the province has developed its IP management strategy; and assessing the leading changes, impact and the policy implication after the implementation of the project.

This paper aims to examine ways in which multinational enterprises (MNEs) can secure knowledge assets across global operations.

The paper reports the results of a comparative case study. The practices of four MNEs are considered in conjunction with practices identified in the literature. A comparative company analysis is conducted using the resource‐based view of the firm.

The paper principally concludes that MNEs have several options for protecting knowledge assets. A set of seven recommendations are derived from the analysis.

The recommendations derived from the analysis could be beneficial for enterprises who do knowledge work in global settings.

The paper offers background and consideration for those companies with IP in global business environments. The background, analysis and recommendations add to the body of knowledge in this area.