scholarly journals The limits of Intellectual Property: Exhaustion of rights, international trademarks and digital copyright

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Chatzimichali

Strong Intellectual Property (IP) protection is a fundamental point in the establishment of a market for new products and services. IP can give significant power to the owner of intangible assets in financing, manufacturing or in general commercial transactions. However, as with any sort of power, too much of it can have detrimental effects. This work provides a discussion on the limits of IP by examining the exhaustion of rights doctrine. The paper briefly presents the legal evolution of the doctrine for trademarks and digital copyright. A discussion follows on the controversial concept of international exhaustion and on the most important points of digital exhaustion.

Author(s):  
Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan

This chapter focusses on how ‘Free Trade Agreements’ (FTAs) fit within the existing multilateral framework, primarily with the Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement which most FTAs take as basis and benchmark from which the contracting parties modify rules among another (inter-se). In this context, the most prominent issue is the effect the continuous strengthening of the standards of intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement has on the optional provisions and flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement. The chapter examines whether and how the TRIPS addresses such further increases in protection and enforcement. It also looks at conflict clauses in FTAs and how they perceive their relation with the multilateral IP rules, especially the TRIPS Agreement. The principal question here is whether rule-relations within the international IP system are still primarily determined by harmonious interpretation — or if conflict resolution rather functions by choosing one rule over another.


Author(s):  
Riikka Kulmala ◽  
Juha Kettunen

As discussed in chapter 10, knowledge-based assets, intellectual property, and capital play a fundamental role in an enterprise’s competitiveness, especially in small knowledge intensive enterprises. Small knowledge intensive enterprises need to create new ways of operating in order to manage the intellectual and knowledge-based assets in their organizations more efficiently. Organizational knowledge and intellectual property can be protected, either formally via IPR, or informally via efficient knowledge management. Successful IP protection requires systematic intellectual property and knowledge management. Intellectual property protection via efficient knowledge management affects the entire organization rather than being just a separate task. It needs to be embedded in organizational work routines, practices, and processes as an overall operational strategy. When embedded in organizational work processes, IP protection and knowledge management become a continuous part of work routines and tasks in the enterprise, not a separate action.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Long ◽  
Dafang Zhang ◽  
Wei Liang ◽  
Xia'an Bi

Many watermarking techniques for intellectual property (IP) protection are not resilient to tampering or removal attacks, especially for field programmable gate array (FPGA)-based IP cores. If attacked, the damaged watermarks cannot provide sufficient evidence in front of a court. To address this issue, the authors present a signature restoration scheme. The thought of secret sharing is introduced to share the signature into small watermarks. These watermarks are encoded with Reed-Solomon (RS) codes and embedded into unused lookup tables (LUTs) of used slices. Unlike most of existing techniques, the proposed scheme can restore the signature only by extracting parts of watermarks. So, it is tolerant to some damaged watermarks caused by removal attacks. The experiments show that the proposed scheme incurs no extra hardware resource and timing overhead. The robustness against attacks is much better by comparing to other schemes.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (DPC) ◽  
pp. 000436-000458
Author(s):  
Lajos (Louis) Burgyan ◽  
Yuji Kakizaki

Technical analysis of intellectual property (IP) is conducted for the purpose of legal protection and product development. A brief review of the process of IP analysis and associated terminology is provided along with examples illustrating the significant potential for monetary benefits to be derived. The evolution of the reverse engineering (RE) process in the semiconductor industry is briefly reviewed from a historical perspective. It is shown how the objective of RE, while continuing its traditional engagement in IP protection, has shifted away from “second sourcing” activities to become an active participant by providing valuable services to technology and product development. The assertion is made that the negative connotation often associated with “reverse engineering” is no longer justified; and the legitimacy, usefulness, and respectability of that process is reaffirmed. The effects of international diffusion of technology are described. It is shown that being aware of technology content in competing high-tech products is now greater than ever before. The process of RE and the “toolbox” of career IP analysts are described through the analysis example of an advanced SOC and SIP structure. The dual utility of the analyst's toolbox and skill set is examined as it is being applied a) to the discovery process aimed at intellectual property protection and b) as a means to accelerate product development. Special attention is given to technical IP analysis conducted in association with new product research and development. Practical examples involving the analysis of advanced 3D structures are provided from the field of 3D integrated product development in order to demonstrate how technical IP analysis can a) help avoid costly mistakes, b) capture design wins, and c) accelerate new product development. The synergistic relationship between IP analysis applied to IP protection and product development is explored; and a coordinated and comprehensive approach to technical IP analysis is recommended whenever practical. A high-tech company will realize maximum benefits from a technical analyst's work if IP analysis of competing products is performed for the purpose of product development with the analyst remaining mindful and attentive of the need to protect corporate patent portfolio. Conversely, knowledge gained from technical analysis aimed at protecting the company's patents can be quite useful to the development engineer. Regardless of whether or not the analyst is an employee of the company or a hired sub-contractor, proper description of the task is crucial from the outset. The analyst should be encouraged to take a dual track approach with primary focus directed towards the main intent (IP protection or engineering analysis of a competing product or technology) without ignoring the secondary purpose. At the end of a project, an assessment should be made as to what part of the acquired knowledge is relevant to the engineering community and what portion of the report needs to be directed to the IP department. Technical IP analysis conducted with this dual purpose in mind is a cost-effective way to maximize return on investment (ROI) in RE. It can also be a powerful tool to reduce the cost of new product development while improving time to market. A new area of technical IP analysis, the extraction of parasitic R, L, C elements from SOC and SIP structures, is explored in detail. This field is believed to be of great importance in 3D integration due to the loss or breakup of ground and power delivery planes as a result of increased reliance on vertical interconnections such as interposers and TSVs. These structures introduce troublesome interconnect inductances, resistances, and capacitances. Both power distribution networks (PDN) and high-speed signal paths are affected by interconnect parasitic elements in component modules such as deep sub-micron 22nm ARM processors, multi-stack memories, and multilayer PCBs of high speed communication devices and systems. It is essential for circuit designers, package designers, and system designers to be aware of these risks as early in the design phase as possible. Practical examples are given how an entire PDN of a larger system including complex 2.5D and 3D packages, substrates, and PCB can be reconstructed from the power source down to individual components, including high-speed data paths. Such reconstruction is done using two-dimensional layer images and via structures. The reconstructed file can be 2D or 3D representation. Depending on the objective, the data residing in those files is then imported into state-of-the art circuit simulation tools familiar to the circuit or package designer. At that point, the circuit, package, or system designer can analyze the entire system and extract all parasitic interconnect elements. The circuit designer can then incorporate all those interconnect and passive component parasitic R, L, C, and M elements or their S-parameter representation into a top-level circuit simulation of an integrated circuit and obtain an accurate circuit performance that is truly representative of the final hardware. In summary, the need for precise modeling of the PDN section and certain high-speed data paths of SOC and SIP structures is reaffirmed, and a case is made for making this sometimes labor intensive process available as part of the technical analysis process. The synergy between reverse engineering conducted for the purpose of IP protection and product development is further emphasized. It is concluded that technical IP analysis, competitor product (hardware) analysis, and product development are activities complementary to one another. These activities, if executed thoughtfully, consistently, and systematically, can not only protect IP, increase intellectual asset value, but can also accelerate product development, guide and fuel innovation, and help in setting the direction of research and development.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-519
Author(s):  
Amy Linh Thuy Nguyen

Purpose While the current anti-globalisation wave is considered as a regional and cyclical relapse among Western countries, the new era of globalisation has shifted away from stagnant developed economies towards the rising prosperity of emerging Asia, where it is attracting substantial global inward foreign direct investment (FDI). Focussing on Vietnam, the country that is seen as Asia’s next economic tiger, the question of how important intellectual properties (IP) protection is in the international competition for FDI inflows is still unsettled, especially on the under-researched topic of trademarks. Design/methodology/approach This paper takes on the business history approach, which allows rich evidence from the dynamic and evolving natures of multinational enterprises (MNEs) to drive the research process, so that international business scholars can test models rigorously. The evidence provided in this paper is essentially qualitative and combines trademark registrations data, with trade and FDI statistics between 1986 and 2016, also draws on companies’ archives, industry reports and related newspaper articles. Findings This paper provides the chronology of intellectual property right (IPR) legal landscapes and the dynamic co-evolution of trademarks and FDI inflows in Vietnam. Three trademark protection strategies for MNEs and their patterns here are addressed. The paper also argues that trademarks bring new insights and IP protection strategy for pharmaceutical MNEs for the case of Vietnam is as important in trademarks as it is in patents. In emerging markets with strong incentives for FDI such as Vietnam, MNEs are not necessarily put off by weak IPR, but rather create alternative strategies for dealing with the lack of IP protection in these emerging market settings. Originality/value This study challenges the stream of thoughts that view trademarks as a “neglected intangible asset” among different IPRs, while in fact, trademarks advance MNEs’ knowledge by ensuring competitiveness and long-run survival in emerging markets. This paper is among the first few attempts to look at pharmaceutical industry through the lens of trademarks, moving away from the traditional patent-focussed approach. It extends the understanding of OLI paradigm and highlights that MNEs need to possess Oa and Op advantages not only at the beginning of internationalisation process but rather evolving through the time to cope with imitation risks in the host country.


2016 ◽  
Vol 07 (02) ◽  
pp. 1650012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos M. Correa

The early industrialization process in developed countries took place under flexible frameworks of intellectual property (IP) protection. Those countries, however, proposed and obtained in trade negotiations the adoption of an international IP regime that expanded and strengthened such protection. While the role of this regime, especially patents, in promoting innovation is controversial, it may effectively limit the ability of developing countries to implement industrial policies. These countries can preserve some room to implement such policies by using certain flexibilities, such as applying rigorous standards of patentability and granting compulsory licenses to broaden the space for local production.


1969 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
David J Dykeman ◽  
Danielle T Abramson

As a result of the global recession that began in 2008, life sciences companies face a groundswell of new business and regulatory pressures that includes health care and patent reform, increased pricing pressures, and diluted markets. Bringing new products from discovery to market is becoming more expensive and unpredictable. In the pharmaceutical sector, some predict that the age of the blockbuster drug has ended as generics present a growing threat to the pharmaceutical giants. Further, with a large number of key patent expirations looming through 2014, analysts expect that large pharmaceutical companies will lose over US$150 billion of revenues of brand name drugs.In response to declining sales and rising R&D costs, the life sciences industry is pursuing new market opportunities by expanding beyond the developed markets of the United States, Europe and Japan, and into emerging markets such as China and India. Despite market uncertainties, however, venture capital funding in the life sciences sector (including pharmaceuticals and medical devices) is on the rise with $2.1 billion going into 206 deals during the second quarter of 201l, an increase of 37 per cent in dollars and 12 per cent in deal volume. To survive – and thrive – in these tumultuous times, both large and small life sciences companies face pressure to develop new products and technological advancements.Patents are pivotal to the life sciences industry. In order to succeed, life sciences companies must distinguish themselves from their competitors through their intellectual property portfolios. A successful patent portfolio represents a well-reasoned business strategy, where each patent is a single strategic building block in a larger portfolio that reflects present and future business objectives. A strong patent portfolio is also important in the current life sciences investment climate, where venture capital funding is often dependent on whether a company has secured its intellectual property assets, thereby validating a company's technology and demonstrating its commercial potential. Although building and maintaining a strong patent portfolio is important for all life sciences companies, it is most critical for early-stage companies. Patent portfolios are often the driving force for major events in the life cycle of a life sciences company, including mergers and acquisitions, public offerings, venture capital investment, strategic collaborations, joint ventures and litigation.As a result of recent measures taken by the US Congress, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the US Supreme Court to reform the current US patent system, life sciences companies must respond with strong patent strategies that address these reforms without sacrificing the company's competitive edge in the marketplace. Such comprehensive technology strategies must maximize patent coverage of a company's current core technology and future improvements, monitor the patent landscape and explore ways to patent white space, and consider cross-licensing opportunities with competitors. With these strategies in place, life sciences companies can withstand patent reform and ensure their success in today's competitive and rapidly evolving global commercialization landscape.


Author(s):  
Dinusha Mendis ◽  
Jane Nielsen ◽  
Diane Nicol ◽  
Phoebe Li

The chapter considers the challenges faced by intellectual property (IP) laws, in particular copyright and patent laws, in responding to emerging technologies and innovation like 3D printing and scanning. It provides a brief introduction to 3D printing before moving to detailed analysis of relevant UK and Australian jurisprudence. Through this comparative analysis, the chapter explores whether copyright and patent laws can effectively protect innovation in this emerging technology, including consideration of both subsistence and infringement. The chapter suggests that 3D printing, like most other technologies, has a universal reach, yet subtle differences in the wording and interpretation of IP legislation between jurisdictions could lead to anomalies in levels of protection. It explores the possibility of a sui generis regime of IP protection for 3D printing, but submits that a nuanced reworking of existing regimes is, in the vast majority of circumstances, likely to be a sufficient response.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.J. Ruitenburg ◽  
F.T.J.M. Fortuin ◽  
S.W.F. Omta

An important concept in innovation literature is open innovation, where firms may use knowledge of other companies to develop new products or processes. However, there is a tension between the desire to be open, to profit from the knowledge of others, and the desire to be closed to prevent others from making use of the firms own profitable knowledge. Formal and non-formal intellectual property (IP) protection mechanisms may protect the company in an innovation alliance, but are often costly and may hinder flexibility and creativity. In the present paper the role of formal and non-formal IP protection arrangements and communication on the building and maintenance of trust and ultimately on performance has been investigated. A survey questionnaire was combined with semi-structured interviews of CEOs and R&D managers of seven companies and two commercial research organizations in the seed sector, one agrifood company, one commercial research organization in the agrifood and one commercial research organization in the high-tech sector. Thirty-three innovation alliances were investigated in total. It was found that for companies active in an innovation alliance it is important to understand how prior experiences, IP protection and communication influence the level of trust in an alliance, and that the level of trust is positively related to innovation performance. Recommendations are given for open innovation managers how to make optimal use of the innovation potential of the alliance partner(s), by fostering communication within the alliance and by using formal IP protection arrangements as a platform to create trust within the alliance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document