LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)最新文献

FRAND in India 印度的FRAND

LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic) Pub Date : 2016-04-23 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2718256

Shubha Ghosh, D. Sokol

{"title":"FRAND in India","authors":"Shubha Ghosh, D. Sokol","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2718256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2718256","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines FRAND issues in India. From an institutional perspective, India's FRAND cases do not effectively establish the appropriate role for antitrust in FRAND. On the one hand, there is the potential for hold-up and anti-competitive conduct in the FRAND setting. Such situations would be very fact specific but the CCI orders to date use sweeping language and analysis based on per se like rules of illegality. On the other hand, the creation of per se like rules of illegality create the possibility that CCI will act as a price regulator rather than antitrust enforcer. Over time and with greater use of economic analysis (and greater reliance on the economic staff at CCI), CCI may improve its institutional capabilities. However, the role of jurisdiction as between CCI and the judiciary remains unclear. How best to treat FRAND disputes will take time but the hope is that through greater experience and learning by doing, the Indian competition system will set out a set of economically informed principles for sound FRAND enforcement.On the issue of institutional design and deference, one question that has not yet been reached (and may not for some time) is how the courts should handle deference when CCI has developed the necessary economic skills to undertake complex cases of antitrust and technology. Should the judiciary defer to agency as expert once expertise developed? This is potentially a chicken and egg problem on developing expertise and rules of deference in need of further study. Complicating matters further is that the economics on competition and patents is complex. Creating an administrable economic model that is coherent remains a work in progress.Overall the Indian FRAND cases suggest that the current mix of Indian institutions may not yet be well suited to address complex issues of antitrust enforcement. Consequently, such cases should be approached cautiously with a mind on how to think through the economics of innovation, and the implications of enforcement on technology, IP and competition to yield optimal results and the right institutional structure for improved enforcement.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125207799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Patent Citations - An Analysis of Quality Differences and Citing Practices in Hybrid Corn 专利引文——杂交玉米品质差异分析及引文实践

LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic) Pub Date : 2016-03-05 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2754341

Petra Moser, Joerg Ohmstedt, P. Rhode

{"title":"Patent Citations - An Analysis of Quality Differences and Citing Practices in Hybrid Corn","authors":"Petra Moser, Joerg Ohmstedt, P. Rhode","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2754341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2754341","url":null,"abstract":"Patents are the main source of data on innovation, but there are persistent concerns that patents may be a noisy and biased measure. An important challenge arises from unobservable variation in the size of the inventive step that is covered by a patent. The count of later patents that cite a patent as relevant prior art – so called forward citations – have become the standard measure to control for such variation. Citations may, however, also be a noisy and biased measure for the size of the inventive step. To address this issue, this paper examines field trial data for patented improvements in hybrid corn. Field trials report objective measures for improvements in hybrid corn, which we use to quantify the size of the inventive step. These data show a robust correlation between citations and improvements in yields, as the bottom line measure for improvements in hybrid corn. This correlation is robust to alternative measures for improvements in hybrid corn, and a broad range of other tests.We also investigate the process, by which patents generate citations. This analysis reveals that hybrids that serve as an input for genetically-related follow-on inventions are more likely to receive self-citations (by the same firm), which suggests that self-citations are a good predictor for follow-on invention.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"184 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122729791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 63

Licensing with Patent Competition 专利竞争授权

LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic) Pub Date : 2016-02-10 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2730474

R. Ding, Chiu Yu Ko

引用次数: 0

The Logic of International Intellectual Property Protection 国际知识产权保护的逻辑

LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic) Pub Date : 2016-01-13 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2736659

R. May, Seth L. Cooper

{"title":"The Logic of International Intellectual Property Protection","authors":"R. May, Seth L. Cooper","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2736659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2736659","url":null,"abstract":"As Intellectual Property becomes increasingly vital to our nation’s wealth and prosperity, the need to ensure its protection on a global basis increases correspondingly. The American economy suffers staggering losses each year to international IP theft. According to the IP Theft Commission (2013), these losses likely exceed $300 billion annually. IP theft is an injustice to the IP owners, diminishes economic prosperity, and undermines job opportunities. Indeed, this is a reason why it is so important to conclude international trade agreements, such as the recently-negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership, that contain meaningful intellectual property protections. The Constitution expressly makes protection of intellectual property rights an imperative of the federal government. The Intellectual Property Clause contained in Article I, Section 8, provides that Congress has 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.” The IP Clause is premised on the understanding that copyrights and patent rights are property rights grounded in the intellectual and physical labors of authors and inventors. There is strong constitutional foundation for international protection of Americans’ copyrights and patent rights. The IP Clause permits protection of foreign intellectual property under federal law – or at the very least, permits it as a means of securing American IP rights abroad. Federal legal recognition of foreign IP constitutes fair play. As a matter of common sense and experience, doing justice, and providing comparable treatment to rights of foreigners facilitates foreign cooperation to protect American IP rights. Treaty-making with foreign nations constitutes another critical constitutional mechanism for securing international protections for Americans’ IP rights.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127464202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Modeling Software Piracy Protection: Monopoly versus Duopoly 软件盗版保护建模:垄断与双寡头垄断

LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic) Pub Date : 2015-11-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2685210

Krešimir Žigić, Jiří Střelický, Michael Kúnin

引用次数: 3

Reforming the Patent System for the Post-Industrial Economy 改革后工业经济的专利制度

LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic) Pub Date : 2015-09-22 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2664035

R. Bera

{"title":"Reforming the Patent System for the Post-Industrial Economy","authors":"R. Bera","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2664035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2664035","url":null,"abstract":"The grant of a patent depends on the technical merit and social worth of an invention under a quid pro quo arrangement where the patentee compensates society by publicly disclosing a clear description of the invention in a written document and explicitly claims those intellectual property aspects of the invention he believes are his under the patent act. By law, this description should be such that those skilled in the relevant arts can replicate the invention without undue experimentation or intellectual exertion either after acquiring a license from the patentee to do so during the life of the patent or without any license thereafter. In practice, the document is seldom written for full comprehension by relevant technical experts (a judicially ignored violation of the patent act) but for lawyers who, in patent litigation, must present their client’s case to generalist judges ignorant of the technical arts that support the patent. The arguments thus deviate from the “substance of what the patentee invented and how significant that invention really is” to “the scope of legal rights not by reference to the invention but by reference to semantic debates over the meaning of words chosen by lawyers”. To obviate these anomalies we suggest certain remedies that would enable the workload related to patent drafting, grant, validation, and infringement to be equitably shared among the patentee, the patent office, the judiciary, and the proposed Patent Validation Board.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117051803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Don't Throw Out Fetal-Diagnostic Innovation with the Bathwater: Why Ariosa v. Sequenom Is an Ideal Vehicle for Constructing a Sound Patent-Eligibility Framework 不要把胎儿诊断创新和洗澡水一起倒掉:为什么Ariosa诉Sequenom是构建健全专利资格框架的理想工具

LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic) Pub Date : 2015-08-27 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2652452

Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Peter S. Menell

{"title":"Don't Throw Out Fetal-Diagnostic Innovation with the Bathwater: Why Ariosa v. Sequenom Is an Ideal Vehicle for Constructing a Sound Patent-Eligibility Framework","authors":"Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Peter S. Menell","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2652452","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2652452","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past five years, the U.S. Supreme Court has reinvigorated patentable subject-matter limitations, issuing four significant decisions after nearly three dormant decades. These decisions reflect justifiable concerns about the patenting of abstract business methods and laws of nature. Just as importantly, they reveal internal inconsistencies and confusion about the scope of patentable subject matter and tension with the centuries-old fabric of patent-eligibility jurisprudence. As Justice Breyer remarked at the oral argument in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014), the Mayo (2012) decision did no more than “sketch an outer shell of the content” of the patent-eligibility test, leaving much of the substance to be developed by the patent bar in conjunction with the Federal Circuit.The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom uncritically accepts an expansive reading of Mayo that conflicts with insights from Myriad and Alice, thereby jeopardizing patent protection for diagnostic testing and other vital fields of biomedical research and possibly others. This amicus brief urges the Federal Circuit to grant en banc review in Ariosa v. Sequenom to ventilate critical issues left unanswered by the Supreme Court’s patent-eligibility decisions. Although some language in Mayo could be interpreted to set forth unconventional or inventive application as a possible test for patent-eligibility, Mayo suggests two other possibilities for an “inventive concept”: non-preemptive application; and non-generic application – that is, more than a statement of a natural law coupled with an instruction to apply it. While the panel was correct to perceive that Mayo describes preemption as the underlying justification for the patent-eligibility doctrine, not the operative test, we believe that the panel was incorrect to conclude that Mayo dictates unconventional or inventive application.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128372052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Of Time and Space: Technological Spillovers Among Patents and Unpatented Innovations During Early U.S. Industrialization 时间与空间:美国早期工业化中专利与非专利创新的技术溢出效应

LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic) Pub Date : 2014-12-01 DOI: 10.3386/W20732

B. Khan

{"title":"Of Time and Space: Technological Spillovers Among Patents and Unpatented Innovations During Early U.S. Industrialization","authors":"B. Khan","doi":"10.3386/W20732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3386/W20732","url":null,"abstract":"The paper explores the role of institutional mechanisms in generating technological knowledge spillovers. The estimation is over panel datasets of patent grants, and unpatented innovations that were submitted for prizes at the annual industrial fairs of the American Institute of New York, during the era of early industrial expansion. The first section tests the hypothesis of spatial autocorrelation in patenting and in the exhibited innovations. In keeping with the contract theory of patents, the procedure identifies high and statistically significant spatial autocorrelation in the sample of inventions that were patented, indicating the prevalence of geographical spillovers. By contrast, prize innovations were much less likely to be spatially dependent. The second part of the paper investigates whether unpatented innovations in a county were affected by patenting in contiguous or adjacent counties, and the analysis indicates that such spatial effects were large and significant. These results are consistent with the argument that patents enhance the diffusion of information for both patented and unpatented innovations, whereas prizes are less effective in generating external benefits from knowledge spillovers. I hypothesize that the difference partly owes to the design of patent institutions, which explicitly incorporate mechanisms for systematic recording, access, and dispersion of technical information.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127791851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 9

The Rise of the End User in Patent Litigation and Attorney Fee Shifting 专利诉讼中终端用户的崛起与律师费的转移

LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic) Pub Date : 2014-11-25 DOI: 10.6521/NTUTJIPLM.2014.3(2).11

G. Bernstein

引用次数: 3

Acquiescence as a Defence in Trademark Injunction Lawsuits 默许作为商标强制令诉讼中的抗辩

LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic) Pub Date : 2014-11-14 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2524741

S. Tripathi

引用次数: 1