Search results
1 – 10 of over 22000Elisabetta Ottoz and Franco Cugno
We study how different rules for allocating litigation costs impact on royalty negotiation when a non-practicing patent holder asserts its patent against a product developer.
Abstract
Purpose
We study how different rules for allocating litigation costs impact on royalty negotiation when a non-practicing patent holder asserts its patent against a product developer.
Methodology/approach
A theoretical framework is proposed which distinguishes between three legal-cost allocation systems: the American system, where each party bears its own costs; the British system, where the loser incurs all costs; and the system favoring the defendant, where the defendant pays its own costs if it loses and nothing otherwise. The model considers both flat lawyer fees and contingency fees.
Findings
We first determine conditions under which, in the assumed contexts, the American system is preferable to the British one. Successively, we show that the less usual system favoring the defendant proves to be an interesting alternative.
Originality/value
In this way, in addition to extend the standard model of patent holdup, we furnish an analytical treatment of recent legislative proposals, such as the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act of 2013.
Details
Keywords
Vimal Kumar, Kuei-Kuei Lai, Yu-Hsin Chang, Priyanka Chand Bhatt and Fang-Pei Su
The evolution of technology has become the mainstream of the current technological innovation era. Technological change is organized in its unique pattern and a new approach that…
Abstract
Purpose
The evolution of technology has become the mainstream of the current technological innovation era. Technological change is organized in its unique pattern and a new approach that takes place in a systematic and selective manner. Such change is generally molded with the amalgamation of various factors, namely, economic, social or scientific and technological. This paper aims to focus on identifying technological trajectories in a technological ecosystem with the case of m-payment technology.
Design/methodology/approach
This study constructs a patent citation network for mobile payment service technology through patent citation data and identifies the main evolution process using the main path analysis of the network. The scope of this study focuses on key innovation using social network analysis and patent citation network, validated using the case of a mobile payment system and analyzing its technological trajectory.
Findings
Analyzing technology evolution provides a greater insight of the overall technology landscape to the researcher and practitioner. Analyzing the m-payment technology landscape gives three main categories of m-payment systems: the mobile financial transaction system), the payee mobile device payment selection system and e-wallet services.
Originality/value
The novelty of this research lies in the process of identifying technological evolution using social network and patent citation network analysis. The case of m-payment technology ecosystem is studied quantitatively which is not explored by previous researchers. This research provides a way to develop the main path technology of innovative products or services to identify technology evolution using the case of m-payment landscape.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to propose a system for regularly offered government-sponsored technology prizes. Such prizes would preserve the incentive to invent without the…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to propose a system for regularly offered government-sponsored technology prizes. Such prizes would preserve the incentive to invent without the barriers to entry that come with the patent system. This is of particular interest to entrepreneurs as they lack the patent portfolio that incumbent firms can leverage into derivative technology.
Design/methodology/approach
After reviewing various efficiency concerns with the patent system, the author describes how technology prizes could work alongside the patent system. Such prizes are best when the sponsor can capture as much of the technology spillover as possible – i.e. through a government agency. This paper provides a framework for a practical prize structure while paying special attention to combating the logistical and public choice concerns of creating a prize.
Findings
This paper focuses on two methods to prevent inefficiency in government-sponsored prize: truth-bonding and information markets. Each mechanism helps combat different kinds of problems. Various complications to this system are explored and addressed.
Practical implications
The paper suggests that an efficient prize system is a possible policy and, if implemented, would embolden technology-focused entrepreneurship and other subsequent technological development.
Originality/value
While previous work has noted the benefits of technology prizes over patents, few attempts have been made to outline an incentive-compatible system for doing so. This paper is the first of its kind to propose a practical and efficient government-sponsored prize system.
Details
Keywords
The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the suitability of moral and ordre public clauses, and to advance the view that ethical reflection within patent systems is valuable.
Abstract
Purpose
The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the suitability of moral and ordre public clauses, and to advance the view that ethical reflection within patent systems is valuable.
Design/methodology/approach
This is a conceptual paper that draws upon the present situation in Europe to illuminate a discussion of the different views about the morality patents, with particular emphasis on criticism of authors who have espoused a narrow interpretation of moral clauses, such as that adopted by the European Patent Office.
Findings
This research found that the claim that patent systems are not appropriate places in which to evaluate moral matters and, therefore, they cannot inform us about morality is false. This is because inventors do not need to wait for authorizing legislation prior to making use of their technology. Hence, moral implications can be evaluated.
Research limitations/implications
These ideas also lead to important theoretical consequences, especially regarding the debate on value-laden science and technology. However, further efforts are needed to address other patent regimes, such as the non-European.
Practical implications
It is shown how the bioethicist community can be incorporated into patent offices. The responsibilities of examiners and businesses in the process are also discussed.
Originality/value
There have been a limited number of studies that examine the value of ethical considerations within the patent system. This paper provides a thought-provoking discussion of moral clauses in Europe. The author also suggests new ways of incorporating ethical scrutiny into patent systems.
Details
Keywords
Universities face incredibly difficult, complex decisions concerning the degree to which they participate in the process of commercializing research. The U.S. government has made…
Abstract
Universities face incredibly difficult, complex decisions concerning the degree to which they participate in the process of commercializing research. The U.S. government has made an explicit policy decision to allow funded entities to obtain patents and thereby has encouraged participation in the commercialization of federally funded research. The Bayh-Dole Act enables universities to participate in the commercialization process, but it does not obligate or constrain them to pursue any particular strategy with respect to federally funded research. Universities remain in the driver's seat and must decide carefully the extent to which they wish to participate in the commercialization process.The conventional view of the role of patents in the university research context is that patent-enabled exclusivity improves the supply-side functioning of markets for university research results as well as those markets further downstream for derivative commercial end-products. Both the reward and commercialization theories of patent law take patent-enabled exclusivity as the relevant means for fixing a supply-side problem – essentially, the undersupply of private investment in the production of patentable subject matter or in the development and commercialization of patentable subject matter that would occur in the absence of patent-enabled exclusivity.While the supply-side view of the role of patents in the university research context is important, a view from the demand side is needed to fully appreciate the role of patents in the university research context and to fully inform university decisions about the extent to which they wish to participate in the commercialization process. Introducing patents into the university research system, along with a host of other initiatives aimed at tightening the relationship between universities and industry, is also (if not primarily) about increasing connectivity between university science and technology research systems and the demands of industry for both university research outputs (research results and human capital) and upstream infrastructural capital necessary to produce such outputs.In this chapter, I explore how university science and technology research systems perform economically as infrastructural capital and explain how these systems generate social value. I explain how the availability of patents, coupled with decreased government funding, may lead to a slow and subtle shift in the allocation of infrastructure resources.
Constance E. Bagley and Gavin Clarkson
This paper focuses on two related questions at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law. First, under what circumstances must the holder of a patent or a…
Abstract
This paper focuses on two related questions at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law. First, under what circumstances must the holder of a patent or a copyright or the owner of a trade secret allow others to use that intellectual property? Second, under what circumstances can the holder of an intellectual property right use that right to make it difficult for another party to succeed in a related market? These questions have vexed antitrust and intellectual property scholars alike ever since the Federal Circuit ruled in 2000 that patent holders “may enforce the statutory right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the claimed invention free from liability under the antitrust laws,” a ruling that directly contradicted the Ninth Circuit ruling that antitrust liability could be imposed for almost identical conduct, depending on the motivations of the patent holder. The various proceedings in United States v. Microsoft only added fuel to the firestorm of controversy.After briefly retracing the jurisprudential path to see how this situation arose, we propose a solution that primarily involves a variation on the real property concept of adverse possession for the intellectual property space along with a slight extension of the Essential Facilities Doctrine for industries that exhibit network effects. We examine, both for firms with and without market power, how our proposal would resolve the situations presented by large fixed asset purchases, the introduction of entirely new products, and operating systems with network effects. We also demonstrate how our proposal could be applied in the European antitrust enforcement context.
Zhikun Ding, Shuanglong Jiang, Fungfai Ng and Menglian Zhu
The quantity of construction technology innovations in patent database grows at a high speed. More challenging technical problems require knowledge workers to make full use of the…
Abstract
Purpose
The quantity of construction technology innovations in patent database grows at a high speed. More challenging technical problems require knowledge workers to make full use of the huge existing technology innovation knowledge base to propose new innovative solutions. Hence, it is critical to deliver the right knowledge to the right people at the right time. To improve innovation efficiency and effectiveness, this research explores the development of a new patent knowledge management system to satisfy the increasing demand of construction innovations.
Design/methodology/approach
TRIZ-based patent knowledge management system (TPKMS) development involves the integration of construction patent knowledge management, theory of inventive problem-solving (TRIZ) theory, database techniques and computer programing technology. The contradiction matrix in TRIZ theory serves as the patent knowledge extraction framework, while SQL Server 2000 database management system is employed to manage the extracted patent knowledge, TRIZ and user account information. Visual C++ 6.0 is adopted as the development tool.
Findings
The developed system to manage construction patent knowledge integrates TRIZ with the database design, enabling the system users to be more problem-focused, systematic and efficient. The system provides a heuristic environment to help improve the innovation effectiveness by motivating knowledge workers’ innovative thinking. Further development of the system is proposed in the context of the age of big data.
Originality/value
A new TRIZ-based patent knowledge management system for construction technology innovation was developed.
Details
Keywords
To begin with I should explain my relatively short acquaintance with documentation matters. Until three and a half years ago my experience was entirely on the examining side of…
Abstract
To begin with I should explain my relatively short acquaintance with documentation matters. Until three and a half years ago my experience was entirely on the examining side of the Patent Office and my acquaintance with the documentation side (or classification section as it is more familiarly known in the Patent Office) was limited to reorganizing several of my search files. Due to a series of retirements at the office I suddenly found myself translated to the Classification Section with the need to catch up very rapidly on classification theory and practice as it applied to patent documents, and in particular to become acquainted with the international organizations operative in this field.
Discusses the basic concepts of intellectual property, particularly as applied to patents; explains the monopoly granted to inventors in return for disclosing details of their…
Abstract
Discusses the basic concepts of intellectual property, particularly as applied to patents; explains the monopoly granted to inventors in return for disclosing details of their inventions in applications for patent specifications. Expands on the problems such a system presents to the inventor, with comments on decisions the inventor must take on whether to patent his invention, and if so, where, and how the procedures should be approached. Presents a brief history of patents, with an explanation of what can and what cannot be patented under the Patents Act 1977. Notes arrangements for protection outside the UK ‐ through the European Patent Office, and other countries of the world. Discusses the main factors which affect the information value of patents, and comments on the major patent information tools ‐ printed, CD‐ROM and databases. Concludes with a brief discussion on the growing impact of the Internet and the World Wide Web, suggesting that such developments might increase the use of the valuable information contained in patent documentation.
Details
Keywords
Esther van Zimmeren, Emmanuelle Mathieu and Koen Verhoest
Many European-level networks and regulatory constellations in different sectors (e.g., energy, telecommunications) without clear anchorage into the European Union (EU…
Abstract
Purpose
Many European-level networks and regulatory constellations in different sectors (e.g., energy, telecommunications) without clear anchorage into the European Union (EU) institutional landscape have been subject to increasing efforts by the EU institutions to tie them closer to the EU. They are serving increasingly as platforms for preparing EU policy or for implementing EU decisions, which may result in closer institutional bonds with the EU. This chapter aims at examining the differences and similarities between the process towards more EU-integration in two different domains (i.e., telecommunications and patents) and regulatory constellations (i.e., supranational and intergovernmental).
Methodology/approach
The chapter analyzes the evolution in the European telecommunication sector and the European Patent System and juxtaposes this analysis with the literature on institutionalization, Europeanization of regulatory network-organizations, and multilevel governance (MLG). It focuses on the role of the European Commission and the interaction with the national regulatory agencies (NRAs) and networks within the institutional framework.
Findings
Irrespective of the particular regime (intergovernmental/supranational) in a certain domain or sector, a common trend of closer coordination and integration prompted by the Commission is taking place, which triggers a certain resistance by the national bodies regulating that domain. As long as a specific competence is considered instrumental in the creation of the single market, the Commission has strong incentives to strengthen its influence in this field, even if those competences have been regulated through an independent intergovernmental regime.
Research implications
The dynamic described in this chapter allows us to reflect upon the MLG conception as developed by Marks and Hooghe (2004), which distinguish between two types of MLG. Type I MLG refers to different levels of governments, more specifically to the spread of power along different governmental levels and the interactions between them. Type II MLG refers to jurisdictions that are both task-specific and based on membership that can intersect with each other. They respond to particular problems in specific policy fields (Marks & Hooghe, 2004). Our analysis shows that the increase in coordination and integration are the outcome of both MLG Type II processes (coordination between two issue-specific bodies) and of MLG Type I processes (tensions between two governmental levels). Furthermore, the negotiation dynamics regarding this increased coordination and integration reveal that the tensions typical of MLG Type I took place as a consequence of the increased coordination between Type II bodies. Put differently, multi-level coordination and integration mechanisms in the EU can be seen as both Type I and Type II processes. They combine features of both categories and reveal that their Type I and Type II features are interdependent.
Practical implications
The analysis in this chapter shows a need for further strengthening the MLG Type I and II conceptual framework by balancing the analytical distinction between the two types with developments about how Type I and Type II are often entangled and intertwined with each other rather than separated realities.
Social implications
The chapter describes and compares the dynamics in the European telecommunications sector and the European patent system with interesting observations for NRAs and the European Commission with respect to coordination and integration.
Originality/value
The original nature of the current chapter relates to the two selected areas and the addition to the literature on MLG.
First, with respect to the areas investigated the dynamics of the European telecommunications sector have been analyzed also by other authors, but the European patent system is an area which is relatively unexplored in terms of governance research. The combination of the two sectors with a detailed analysis of similarities and differences is highly original and generates interesting lessons with respect to coordination and integration in supranational and intergovernmental regimes.
Second, Marks and Hooghe (2004) distinguish between the two types of MLG as if they are two different constructs that are not related to each other. Our cases and argument cover both types of MLG and show the interconnection between the dynamics taking place in the two types of MLG.
Details