- The Issue
- Case Law Search
Search 4iP Articles
Access Artificial Intelligence and Data Business Models Cyber-Physical Systems Digital Platforms Digital Single Market European Commission FRAND Industry 4.0 Infographics Internet of Things (IoT) IP and Competition Law IP Enforcement IP Management Legislation Licensing Open Source Software Patent Strategy Patent System and Patent Quality Policy Regulation SMEs Standardisation Student Contribution Trade Law and Regulation
Research: Are PAEs a Threat to Europe?
by Igor Nikolic
Patent Assertion Entities are often negatively portrayed as harmful “patent trolls” that engage in speculative and abusive patent litigation against manufacturing companies. Although mass PAE litigation has mainly been US phenomenon, a recent study indicated that PAEs are on the rise in Europe and a number of changes to the European patent and litigation system have been recommended. This paper provides a different perspective on PAEs. It will first show that not all PAEs engage in harmful activities and that most are in the legitimate business of patent licensing. Further, Europe has in place different patent and litigation incentives than the US, which effectively guard against any abusive patent litigation. Finally, the available evidence does not in fact show the presence of mass and harmful PAE litigation in Europe.
4iP News: 4iP Council and University of Alicante joint seminar “Getting Ready for the Internet of Things”
4iP Council and the University of Alicante have joined together to brief patent attorneys, IP professionals and students on intellectual property and the Internet of Things.
Coming soon, keep me posted...
Categories: IP Enforcement
Research: Patent Assertion Entities and Standard Essential Patents: Keep Calm and Carry On
by Igor Nikolic, PhD researcher in law at the University College, London
This article discusses positive and negative effects of PAEs’ patent assertions raised in literature and the assertion of standard essential patents by PAEs as well as the problematic surrounding patent privateering. The article aims to demonstrate that PAEs are not a unitary phenomenon, but adopt many different business models. It shows that it is incorrect to label all PAEs as “bad” and to devise rules that would be aimed at this one particular category of patent holders. It also shows that, in the SEP context, competition law is not an appropriate remedy and that PAEs do not have the ability to charge excessive royalties for SEPs.
Research: Patent rights in a climate of intellectual property rights skepticism - Executive Summary
by Haris Tsilikas, Research Associate at Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Summary of a paper by the Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Acting Chairman of the US Federal Trade Commission
A movement is underway to dilute U.S. patents, which have recently been the object of unprecedented criticism. U.S. policymakers lack clear guideposts for evaluating this criticism. Further, some emerging economies are at a crossroads in deciding how to treat proprietary technology, and they look at this U.S. debate through the prism of their own history and economic pressures. This Article defends robust patent rights based on evidence about the relationship between patents and innovation. Given the rich innovation in markets where claimed patent-related problems are most prevalent, the cautious, informed and correct response is incremental, targeted adjustment. Patents should remain a central feature of U.S. technology policy.