Search results

The objectives of the case study are to provide an overview of intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights in Indian context; understand the intellectual property rights implementation and challenges for implementing it in emerging economies; understand what would be the best approach that companies can adopt when the companies face backlash in such circumstances; and explore the scope for redefining the intellectual property rights in the changing global environment.

In December 2021, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FRA) in India revoked the plant variety protection (PVP) certificate granted to PepsiCo India Holding (PHI) for its Lays variety potato (FL-2027, known as FC-5). The FC-5 variety possessed low moisture content which made it suitable for making potato chips. The controversy started with Pepsi suing the small and marginal farmers of Gujarat for alleged patent infringement and cultivating the patented variety. Pepsi’s legal suit against nine marginal potato farmers in Gujarat initiated the dispute over how intellectual property (IP) rights are used to intimidate small, marginal farmers and its infringement of farmers’ rights. But, on the other side, the interesting aspect was how IP infringement could be a setback for the companies that made the capital investment to develop the variety. The case study discusses the backlash Pepsi faced due to this IP rights legal suit and the punitive aspects of IP rights (IPR) law. Moreover, in the context of the global pandemic, the case study helped discuss the need to redefine the intellectual property rights regime keeping in mind global welfare.

The case is intended for use in postgraduate-level management courses in agricultural marketing, agribusiness, international business and economics. This study can help management students understand how IPR is defined, the apparent complexities associated with it and the adverse effect of it on small and marginal farmers in emerging economies.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 5: International business.

International business; business ethics; international trade law; intellectual property

Undergraduate and Master's level courses in Business and Management, particularly with a focus on international trade.

This case covers the issues that surround piracy of intellectual property by highlighting illegal manufacture and distribution of millions of Zippo brand windproof lighters and considers the seriousness of the large-scale theft of intellectual property by civilized nations. The focus of this case is on the additional victimization of the producers of genuine products, mostly European and American, who have the policy of life-time repair-or-replace warrantee, which by extension, although wrongly, becomes applicable to their counterfeits. Some micro and macro aspects are covered in detail, some are alluded to, while others are left out for the teachers of this case to justify considering the local logic and culture.

There are major lessons embedded in this case: first, intellectual piracy is not less than the theft of tangible property. Second, the problem of piracy carried out by large, civilized countries is really serious because of its huge size. Third, if the rights of those developing innovation are not protected and they cut their investments in R&D, the consequence will hurt all people in the world – emerging and developed.

Teaching note.

The case will help to understand the concept of online marketplaces and the working of their business model through third party selling. The case highlights how third party selling opens door to online counterfeiting. The case well presents the need of integrity and ethics in business. It showcases how Alibaba took responsibility, designed various initiatives to curb the problem and emerged as a global face for anti-counterfeiting actions.

Manufacturing and selling of counterfeits have become easier than ever with the wide and easy reach of technology. Internet has smoothened the sale of such fake replicas around the globe. Alibaba Group faced serious problem of counterfeit selling across its various websites. The various challenges were degrading global image, rising number of fake products and numerous lawsuits filed against the company. The case study will help readers to understand the critical aspects of counterfeiting and decisions involved to run such models where the platform is not a direct seller but just an online marketplace. It emphasises how technology and brand collaboration can be used as a means to identify and remove fake product listings from such platforms, thereby preserving the integrity of business. The case also stresses the need to preserve intellectual property rights and exclusivity of original brands.

Senior Undergraduate, MBA and Executive MBA.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 8: Marketing.

ESPE, the market leader, is a medium-sized German manufacturer of precision dental impression materials competing in a shrinking market. To grow the business, ESPE invests substantial resources in innovative impression materials and associated distribution mechanisms. Squeezed by the shrinking market, the competition is increasingly using the proprietary channels (dispensing mechanisms) and brand equity (trademark) of ESPE to maintain their market share. There is a potential infringement. Explores how ESPE is organized to execute on the options imbedded in its IP rights.

To provide students with an understanding of how to use brands and trademarks in conjunction with trade secrets, patents, and other forms of IP in mature markets to build and maintain innovation-based competitive advantage.

The case deals with the issues of technology transfer and protection of intellectual property in an international contract, with the International commercial arbitration as the dispute resolution method. The case highlights the distrust between parties when they do not want to continue doing business together and the use of legal technicalities to delay the matter from settling and utter confusion due to international nature of contract, multiple court proceedings in different countries and even questioning the status of the contract – whether a concluded contract or not.

The spread of bird flu outside of Asia, particularly in Africa and Europe, topped headlines in 2006. The migration of wild birds brought the virus to Europe, where for the first time it spread to productive livestock, bringing it closer to the Western world. Due to today's globalized and highly interconnected world, the consequences of a potential bird flu pandemic are expected to be much more severe than those of the Spanish flu, which killed 50-100 million people between 1918 and 1921. A vaccine for the bird virus is currently not available. As of July 2006, 232 cases of human infection had been documented, mostly through direct contact with poultry. Of those, 134 people died. The best medication available to treat bird flu was Roche's antiviral drug Tamiflu. However, Tamiflu was not widely available; current orders of government bodies would not be fulfilled until the end of 2008. Well aware that today's avian flu might become a global pandemic comparable to the Spanish flu, Roche CEO Franz Humer had to decide how Roche should respond. While the pharmaceutical industry continued its research efforts on vaccines and medications, Tamiflu could play an important role by protecting healthcare workers and helping to contain the virus---or at least slow down its spread. Due to patent protection and a complicated production process with scarce raw ingredients, Roche had been the only producer of the drug. Partly in response to U.S. political pressure, in November 2005 Roche allowed Gilead to produce Tamiflu as well. Even so, it would take at least until late 2007 for Roche and Gilead to meet the orders of governments worldwide. The issue was a difficult one for Roche: What were the risks; what were the opportunities? If a pandemic occurred before sufficient stockpiles of Tamiflu had been built up, would Roche be held responsible? What steps, if any, should Roche take with respect to patent protection and production licensing in the shadow of a potential pandemic?

Students will weigh the benefits of short-term profit maximization against the risks that a highly uncertain event could pose to a business and consider nonstandard approaches to mitigate these risks. Students will discuss the challenges of addressing low-probability, high-impact events; potential conflicts with the short-term view of the stock market and analyst community; and challenges of the patent protection model for drugs for life-threatening diseases.

Entrepreneurship, Strategic Marketing, Innovation, New Product Development (NPD).

This case is suitable to be used in advanced undergraduate and MBA/MSc.

This case illustrates the challenges related to designing and launching an innovative product in the market. It revolves around the issues pertaining to smart organic fertilizer's (SOF) pre- and post-launch experiences. Haji Sani Kimi, a Senior Research Officer of the Strategic Research Centre at MARDI, had developed a zeolite-based organic fertilizer which he believed to be the first of its kind in Malaysia. He had taken five years to complete his research in developing SOF. Seeing its potential benefits for the land and farmers, the then Director General of MARDI asked Sani to speed up the process of technology transfer to be the first to launch the product in the market. In 2005, MARDI established a five-year agreement with Hicotech Sendirian Berhad to license its intellectual property rights (IPR). Adnan, a successful automobile business entrepreneur, ventured into the organic fertilizer business, as this product was in high demand and extensively used by paddy farmers in Malaysia and was subsidized by the government. However, Hicotech failed to get government contract to supply organic fertilizer under the government subsidy program. As such, it had to compete in the open market which was dominated by already-established Chinese entrepreneurs. At the beginning, SOF was doing well in the market, but, during 2007, Hicotech experienced great financial loss due to its mismanagement of collecting payment from its customers. Hicotech tried to work in partnership with ABH Mega Sendirian Berhad to overcome its financial difficulties. However, due to some disagreements, the collaboration was terminated within a short period of time. From 2005 to the end of 2009, Hicotech was not able to pay any royalties to MARDI and the license of Hicotech was to expire in February 2010. Haji Sani was trying to get a solution to revive SOF in the market. Moreover, he was confused whether to renew the license of SOF IPR with Hicotech or to search for another company.

Using this case, students can learn how a small- and/or medium-scale companies can strategize their new product launch. Based on the given industry scenario, students can realize the potential challenges that are related to launching a new product. Furthermore, this case demonstrates that producing a high-quality product is not enough to succeed in the market; the right strategy also plays an important role in making it successful. Last, it can be also learned that proper managerial control and financial support are two important factors that contributes in any business success. Overall, strategic marketing/management students will learn the importance of adopting proper strategy, while the students who are undertaking the new product development course benefit by seeing the practical situation of a new product launch, its rise and its fall.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

This is a field-researched case about a nonprofit organization, the Accelerated Cure Project (ACP), dedicated to accelerating advances toward a cure for multiple sclerosis (MS). Inspired by the successful open source software development platform, ACP brings the strengths of that platform into the medical research and development environment. At the opening of the case, Robert McBurney, an Australian scientist with extensive experience in the biotech world, has been named CEO. McBurney and his team want to use ACP's bio-sample and data Repository to drive innovation in the search for the cure for MS by fostering collaborative research and development across research institutions, pharmaceutical and bio-tech companies. To encourage such collaboration ACP waives its rights to potentially lucrative Intellectual Property. This decision to foster collaboration at the expense of revenue sources appears problematic, since ACP does not have the staff or resources to undertake fundraising at the scale needed to fund current projects. ACP chooses to serve instead as an open access research accelerator making an impact on the field by functioning as an innovation driver rather than a profit maker. Is this an innovative recipe for success in finding a cure for MS or a recipe for financial disaster for ACP?

Interviews provided the primary source of data for this case. Four semi-structured interviews were conducted with the CEO of ACP, the Vice President of Scientific Operations, and a member of the organization's Board of Trustees, a collaborating university researcher, and the President of a bio-tech company working with ACP. Interview data was supplemented with additional information from ACP's web site, news reports, McBurney's comments at Suffolk University's Global Leadership in Innovation and Collaboration Award event, and follow-up conversations.

This case is intended for use in an undergraduate course examining strategic management issues midway through the term. The case discussion can center on issues relating to: first, the development of the business model; second, revenue resources and fundraising. Students are expected to spend two to three hours of outside preparation reviewing concepts of change leadership and the collaborative enterprise business model. They should read the case materials and brainstorm options for improved change leadership. The case can be taught in one two-hour class period.

The purpose of this case is to introduce students to the strategic management and funding challenges faced by an organization that is using a non-traditional business model in an increasingly complex environment. As a result of discussing this case, students should be able to: first, examine strategic organizational strengths, analyze opportunities created by business, market and environmental factors, and strategize to minimize weaknesses and to address threats identify an organization's strategic focus; recognize and recommend options at crucial decision making junctures in a business situation; second, assess an organization's revenue model; analyze how this model can be improved; third, analyze the functionality and sustainability of an organization's business model.

A family business founded by Chinese immigrants grew into a $133 million toy and costume maker by exploiting seasonal niche segments in the highly competitive, global toy industry. Sales of traditional toys stagnated when replaced by game consoles and electronic toys. Unable to compete in high tech toys, MegaToys moved instead toward seasonal products. In 2007, brothers Peter and Charlie Woo were about to pitch what they hoped would be $63 million in Easter basket sales to Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart took the full order, it would come to represent over half of MegaToys' revenue.

The company was faced with the dilemma of how to grow, and at what pace. Charlie Woo knew that MegaToys could continue to grow as long as it was able to satisfy Wal-Mart's demands. Peter Woo wondered if this was the smartest way to grow the business. “Growth is a good thing as long as you don't sell your shirt to get it,” he noted. Should MegaToys continue to increase its sales to Wal-Mart, or would dependence on Wal-Mart eventually threaten the firm's success? Were there other, untapped opportunities for MegaToys that were well aligned with its strengths, resources, and capabilities?

This case describes and analyzes the negotiations surrounding the U.S.–Thailand free trade agreement (FTA) that never materialized. The case offers an excellent opportunity to discuss the complexities of trade negotiations, the welfare analyses of FTAs (with trade diversion and creation), and the growth of FTAs and customs unions (CUs) as opposed to multilateral trade liberalizations.