Veranstaltungen

Abstract:

This paper examines patent oppositions as firm-level responses to newly-granted patents. We present a citation-based construct for measuring the technological lineage to which a newly granted patent lays claims. This network-analytic construct, which we label technology trees, allows us to develop a refined explanation of patent oppositions by taking into account the ownership structures of the technology to which a particular patent relates. An application to the cosmetics industry reveals that the technology tree measure, which is calculated on the level of individual patents, usefully complements established network measures at the industry level, such as triplet counts for measuring patent thickets. This suggests a need for further and more fine grained analyses of technology trees as context in which patent oppositions play out.

Abstract:

We study how competitive mechanisms of external knowledge acquisition affect the emergence of collaborative modes of learning. Specifically, we link the hiring of R&D scientists from competing firms to the subsequent formation of collaborative agreements between these firms – in our setting technology oriented alliances and licensing agreements. Using data on inventor mobility and alliance formation amongst 42 global pharmaceutical over 16 years we are able to show that inventor mobility in fact increases the likelihood of alliance formation in periods following inventor moves. Moreover, our results suggest that this effect becomes more pronounced if more productive inventors are recruited but weaker if the recruiting firm is already familiar with the inventor’s prior employer’s technological capabilities. These findings are more robust for alliances that aim at joint R&D efforts than for pure licensing agreements.

Please drop us a line if you plan to attend.

Abstract
We study bilateral cross-licensing agreements among N (> 2) competing firms. We find that the industry-profit-maximizing royalty can be sustained as the outcome of bilaterally efficient agreements. This holds regardless of whether agreements are public or private and whether firms compete in quantities or prices. We extend this monopolization result to a general class of two-stage games in which firms bilaterally agree in the first stage to make each other payments that depend on their second-stage non-cooperative actions. Policy implications regarding the antitrust treatment of cross-licensing agreements are derived.

Bei dem Kartellrechtsvortrag wird Ministerialrat Dr. Armin Jungbluth, Leiter des Referats Wettbewerbs- und Verbraucherpolitik beim Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, hochaktuell und aus erster Hand über den Stand der 9. GWB-Novelle berichten – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des dann wahrscheinlich „druckfrischen“ Referentenentwurfs.

Wir bitten um Anmeldung bis zum 1.7.2016 bei Frau Delia Zirilli.

Abstract
Using a large scale experiment involving more than a thousand open source software programmers, we match individual monthly contributions to open source programs with behavior in online games we ran. We study how social preferences affect the patterns of production and the overall success of projects. We show in particular that groups with a larger share of reciprocators are more likely to fail, but conditional on not failing, are more successful. The effect is particularly strong for technological areas and development stages characterized by more variance in contributions.

The IPDR Forum is fostering the creation and implementation of effective Dispute Resolution methos in the field of Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution is now more important than ever.  Alternative Dispute Resolution and intellectual property? An improbable pair but one that is getting more and more attention from practitioners, scholars and authorities: For instance, the European Commission refers to alternative dispute resolution methods, such as arbitration, as an exemplary model solution for disputes in the field of FRAND licensing. The CJEU names the determination of FRAND-Terms by an independent third party as a way out, when litigants in SEP cases cannot agree on details of the FRAND-license at hand. And the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court even provides for a separate arbitration and mediation centre as part of the future, unified patent litigation system.

Website IPDR-Forum

Der Ökonom Fritz Machlup erklärte 1958 im U.S. Kongress, er könne nicht sagen, ob das Patentrecht den technischen Fortschritt mehr fördere oder hindere. Sechzig Jahre später können wir feststellen, dass weiterhin keine vergleichbare Alternative besteht. Trotz ständig neuer Herausforderungen und wachsender Kritik erfreut sich das Patentsystem steigenden Nutzerzahlen und größerer Verbreitung. Was nun: Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen oder Patentrecht in der Krise?

Die These des Referenten lautet, dass das Patentrechtssystem so lange interessant bleibt, wie es glaubwürdige Antworten auf sich verändernde Bedürfnisse der interessierten Kreise bietet; kurzum: wie es die ihm zugedachten Funktionen erfüllt. Es gehört deshalb ständig überprüft und revidiert. Ob und wo allenfalls Anpassungsbedarf in Europa besteht, beleuchtet der Referent nicht abschließend an Hand von drei unterschiedlichen Herausforderungen:

1. dem Offenlegungserfordernis der Herkunft genetischer Ressourcen und traditionellen Wissens in Patentanmeldungen;
2. der Sicherstellung der medizinischen Behandlungsfreiheit für Ärzte und Apotheker im Lichte der mit der Entscheidung G 2/08 geänderten EPA-Rechtsprechung; sowie
3. der Frage der Transparenz über Patente im Saatgutbereich.

Sein Fazit lautet: Ein paar ‚Schwalben‘ machen noch keine Krise, doch es besteht Handlungsbedarf.

Der Referent Prof. Dr. iur. Felix Addor ist der stellvertretende Direktor und Rechtskonsulent des Eidgenössischen Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum (IGE), dem Kompetenzzentrum in der Schweizer Verwaltung für alle Fragen des Geistigen Eigentums. Er leitet seit 2000 den für Politik-Dienstleistungen zuständigen Direktionsbereich des IGE, d.h. er ist insb. zuständig für die verwaltungsinterne Vorbereitung und parlamentarische Begleitung der Gesetzgebung. Seit 2008 ist er auch Titularprofessor an der Juristischen Fakultät der Universität Bern und seit 2013 Senior Fellow am Global Health Centre des Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Genf.

Seine Tätigkeitsschwerpunkte umfassen Verhandlungslehre, alternative Streitregelungsmethoden, öffentliche Gesundheitsdiplomatie sowie alle Bereiche des Immaterialgüterrechts. Er schloss seine Studien der Rechtswissenschaften an der Universität Bern ab mit dem Staatsexamen als Rechtsanwalt (1990 – magna cum laude) und der Promotion (1997 – summa cum laude). Für seine Dissertation im Zivilverfahrensrecht erhielt er 1998 den Walther Hug Preis.

Laden Sie sich die Einladung für die Veranstaltung herunter.

Bitte melden Sie sich bis zum 20. Juni 2016 unter anmeldung(at)ip.mpg.de an.

From June 20 to June 22, 2016, the Center for Law & Economics at ETH Zurich, the Institute for Strategy, Technology and Organization at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich and the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition will jointly organize the first Munich Summer Institute (MSI 2016).

The Munich Summer Institute 2016 will focus on three areas:

• Digitization, Strategy and Organization (June 20, 2016) (chairs: Tobias Kretschmer and Jörg Claussen)
• Innovation and Entrepreneurship (June 21, 2016) (chair: Dietmar Harhoff)
• Law & Economics of Innovation (June 22, 2016) (chair: Stefan Bechtold)

The goal of the Munich Summer Institute is to stimulate a rigorous in-depth discussion of a select number of research papers and to strengthen the interdisciplinary international research community in these areas.

Researchers in economics, law, management and related fields at all stages of their career (from Ph.D. students to full professors) may attend the Munich Summer Institute as presenters, discussants or attendants.

The Munich Summer Institute will feature keynote lecturers (by Chris Forman (Georgia Tech), Pamela Samuelson (UC Berkeley) and Rosemary Ziedonis (Boston University)), up to 19 plenary presentations (each with a discussant), as well as poster sessions (including a poster slam).

The Munich Summer Institute will be held at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities in the heart of Munich. The organizers will fund travel and Hotel expenses for all plenary Speakers and hotel expenses for all poster presenters.

Any questions concerning the Munich Summer Institute should be directed to Stefan Bechtold, Dietmar Harhoff or Tobias Kretschmer.

The program is available here.

The general information is available here.

The papers are available here:

June 20, 2016: Digitization, Strategy and Organization

June 21, 2016: Innovation and Entrepreneurship

June 22, 2016: Law & Economics of Innovation