Events

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room E10

In cooperation with WIPO, LES and the Munich IPDR Forum, we will be hosting the 2017 WIPO ADR Workshop on 9 and 10 November 2017. The event will have the character of both an academic conference and an instructional workshop.

On the first day we will discuss general arbitration and mediation issues that have relevance for IP disputes. Among these are, besides the basic procedural processes, topics like arbitrability of IP disputes, competition-law related ordre public concerns and the tension between the public interest in transparent arbitration procedures on the one hand and the interest of individual parties in privacy and confidentiality on the other hand.

The focus of the second day will be on disputes regarding the calculation of FRAND licensing fees for use of standard-essential patents. Standard-essential patents have so far had their greatest impact on the telecommunications industry. In view of the increasing connectedness of the industry, discussed under the key words Internet of Things and Industry 4.0, and the growing degree of automation and digitalization of a wide range of products, such as self-driving cars, standardization will be a topic with even greater fundamental significance in the future. It is established that the owners of standard-essential patents have to make the standard technologies for which they hold exclusive patents available to interested standards users on FRAND terms. What is unclear and controversial, however, is how to calculate FRAND-consistent terms and fees, and how to conduct related dispute resolution procedures. In view of the complexity of the calculation of FRAND licensing fees, the European Commission has made repeated reference to arbitration as a possible dispute-resolution instrument. The Court of Justice of the European Union in its landmark decision of 16 July 2015 (C-170/13, Tz. 68 – Huawei) likewise identifies the possibility of a private-autonomous resolution of disputes, though limiting its statement on procedural design to the vague reference that “the amount of the royalty [may] be determined by an independent third party, by decision without delay”. To promote legal clarity in this economically important area and to provide a contribution to increasing the efficiency of dispute resolution, we are currently, in a series of preparatory workshops, putting together a proposal for guidelines on designing alternative dispute-resolution procedures in conformity with FRAND principles (FRAND ADR Case Management Guidelines). We will present a first draft of the Guidelines at the ADR Workshop.

Contact person: Dr. Axel Walz

Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, München, Raum E10

Liebe Mitglieder des Max-Planck-Instituts,
sehr herzlich laden wir Euch/Sie zu einer Paneldiskussion zu aktuellen Fragen im Zusammenhang mit der privaten Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung (private enforcement) ein.

Wir freuen uns sehr, dass wir ausgewiesene Spezialisten für die Veranstaltung gewinnen konnten:

• Susanne Amenda, Senior Legal Counsel, Siemens AG, München
• Dr. Andreas Boos, Special Counsel Milbank, München
• Dr. Hans W. Friederiszick, Managing Director, E.CA Economics, Berlin

Wie gewohnt lädt das Münchner Kartellrechtsforum anschließend zum informellen Austausch bei Getränken und Häppchen ein.

Wir bitten um Anmeldung bis zum 2. November 2017 bei delia.zirilli(at)ip.mpg.de.

Wir freuen uns auf einen spannenden und informativen Austausch!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt
Münchner Kartellrechtsforum e. V.

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

This paper studies how early stage entrepreneurs learn about the quality of their ventures. I assess the effect of negative feedback on abandonment using application and judging data from 87 new venture competitions, 34 of which privately informed founders of their relative rank. I use a difference-in-differences design and matching estimators to compare lower and higher ranked losers, across competitions in which they did and did not observe their standing. Receiving negative feedback increased venture abandonment by about 13 percent. The effect occurs quickly, doubles among women founders, and increases with signal precision. It decreases with venture maturity and riskiness.

Contact Person: Dr. Fabian Gaessler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room E10

Dr. Christoph Ernst wurde 1954 in Bremen geboren. Zunächst Tätigkeit als Rechtsanwalt in Bremen mit den Schwerpunkten Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht sowie Steuerrecht; 1989 Erwerb der Zusatzqualifikation „Fachanwalt für Steuerrecht“. Danach Beginn der Tätigkeit im Bundesministerium der Justiz in der Abteilung für Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht. Seit Mai 2010 Leiter einer Unterabteilung im BMJV mit den Schwerpunkten Allgemeines Wirtschaftsrecht, Neue Technologien und Geistiges Eigentum. Leiter der deutschen Delegation im Verwaltungsrat des EPA und Mitglied des Präsidiums des Verwaltungsrats. Seit 1. Oktober 2017 Vorsitzender des Verwaltungsrats. Vertreter Deutschlands in den europäischen Gremien zur Vorbereitung des EU-Patents (Engerer Ausschuss bei der EPO und Vorbereitungsausschuss zur Europäischen Patentgerichtsbarkeit). Ebenso Leiter der deutschen Delegation im Verwaltungsrat des EU-Amtes für Geistiges Eigentum in Alicante (EUIPO). Darüber hinaus deutscher Vertreter bei der Generalversammlung der WIPO.

Ansprechpartner: Dr. Matthias Lamping

Anmeldung: Elisabeth Amler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

This paper focuses on the relationship between therapeutic value and different measures of market rewards (the number of patents, price, market share, and total revenues) of a new treatment. Using an assessment of therapeutic value provided by the French Haute Authorité de Santé (HAS), I find a weak relationship between most measures of rewards and this assessment of therapeutic value, suggesting that the returns to developing a “me-too” product are not very different from developing treatments with greater therapeutic effects. One interpretation is that the HAS score is a poor assessment of therapeutic value, in which case the use of similar health technology assessments by governments and other payers should be re-examined. Alternatively, if the HAS score is informative, the results suggest countries are spending too much on less innovative products, and that a re-balancing of innovation incentives may be worth considering if therapeutic value is highly related to social welfare.

Contact Person: Zhaoxin Pu

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

Abstract
Entrepreneurs learn from a variety of sources. One particularly important channel is learning from fellow entrepreneurs. In this study we examine the influence of close geographic proximity on new (to the entrepreneur) technology adoption decisions at one of the largest technology coworking hubs in the United States. To deal with endogenous geographic clustering, we rely on the random assignment of office space to the hub’s 266 startups. Using floorpans to measure geographic distance, we find that close proximity greatly influences the likelihood of adopting an upstream (production) technology also used by a peer firm. This effect, however, quickly decays with distance where startup firms that are more than 25 meters away are no longer influenced by each other. This proximity premium is largest for small firms and when startups are in different industries. Conversely, the distance discount disappears for startups in the same industry and for female-founder startups suggesting these startups rely on alternate mechanisms to overcome the negative effects of distance. We discuss the implications of the balance between concentration and diversity in promoting the diffusion of ideas within a fast-changing entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Contact Person: Fabian Gaessler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competiton, room E 10

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

Researchers’ scientific excellence determines much of the academic reward system including publication output, career promotion and research funding. In this article, we compare different measures of scientific excellence, adding to the discussion on measuring scientific quality and research performance. We construct several author-author text similarity indicators between a stratified sample of scientists and ‘frontier scientists’, which we identify through academic prizes and prestigious third-party funding (ERC grants). We address the question whether high (low) scientists’ similarity (or distance) to the frontier of knowledge provides a valid measure of scientific excellence in comparison to citation counts.

Contact Person: Dr. Fabian Gaessler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

Are the social norms of basic science and the formal rules of the patent system complementary, or conflicting regulations for innovation? In view of the advancing implementation of innovation as the third mission of public basic science, my study investigates scientists’ motivations to patent, as well as their perception of patent-related research impediments. It does so by means of semi-structured interviews among scientists in German public basic research institutes. The reported motives correspond to strategic motives found in industry, but relate to science-specific incentives. Furthermore, the results indicate that while social norms in science compensate potential research impediments created by existing patents, secrecy caused by the intention to patent can create friction with academic norms for cooperation and knowledge sharing. These results are interpreted to indicate that patent functions and effects are not defined by the patent system itself, but at the multiple levels of governance of the socioeconomic system which utilizes patents.

Contact Person: Dr. Fabian Gaessler