June 2016

les Nouvelles – June 2016 – Full Issue

Advancing the Business of Intellectual Property Globally

PDF, 1.44 MB

Defining Fairness: Promoting Standards Development By Balancing The Interests Of Patent Owners And Implementers
By Matteo Sabattini

Innovation and technology are fundamental drivers of the world economy. Mobile technologies, in particular, generated a global revenue of around $3.3 trillion in 2014, with more than 11 million jobs worldwide being related to mobile technology, and it is estimated that at least two-thirds of the mobile industry is based on innovation. 37 percent of the $3.3 trillion revenue was generated by mobile devices (components and manufacturing, device retail, etc.), 44 percent by communication services (mobile infrastructure, mobile site operations and mobile operators), the rest was generated by mobile content and applications [BCG].

PDF, 248.12 KB

COP 21: Historic Climate Change Agreement And Its Impact On Access And Transfer Of Green Technologies
By Fabrice Mattei

It didn’t seem achievable until the early morning of December 12, 2015, after 12 days and nights of intense negotiations, 150 heads of state visits, over 40,000 attendees, not less than 14 opposing negotiating camps2 and unprecedented private business involvement, all 196 countries member of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) reached a milestone binding agreement on climate change (“Paris Agreement”).3 Since then the profound threat4 caused by climate change is ranked as “human rights,”5 recognized as “universal”6 and treated as “urgent.”7 The Paris Agreement is far more ambitious, meaningful and global than all past legal instruments on climate change setting worldwide binding greenhouse gases emission reduction targets and commitments to all 196 UNFCCC’s Parties within a specific time frame.

PDF, 170.29 KB

Splitting The Atom: Economic Methodologies For Profit Sharing In Reasonable Royalty Analysis
By DeForest McDuff

In recent years, courts have excluded economic experts for improperly using “rules of thumb” for profit sharing in reasonable royalty analyses. Common examples are the 25% Rule and improper application of the Nash Bargaining Solution (sometimes cynically, yet inappropriately, referred to as the “50% rule of thumb”). Such rules have, in the past, been popular in certain expert circles due to ease of implementation and purported wide applicability. However, courts have recently excluded blind application of rules of thumb for failing to tie such methodologies to the specific facts of a given case.1 As a result, many experts have been left with a dilemma for how to approach profit sharing between licensor and licensee in a consistent manner while still accounting for the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

PDF, 111.28 KB

Recent Developments In Patenting And Licensing In Latin America: Brazil, Chile And Peru
By Cândida Ribeiro Caffé, Mariana Abenza, Felipe Claro and Renzo Scavia

The protection of intellectual property is becoming an increasingly important issue in Latin American countries. Since the adoption of the TRIPs Agreement, governments are improving their IPRs law and developing a new awareness for patenting and licensing.

PDF, 143.25 KB

Licencing Of Patent Applications— Pre-Grant Royalty Earning
By Madelein Kleyn

Research and development is costly. International patent portfolios even more so. The business strategy of most corporations, when filing a patent application, is to seek some return on R&D investment, mostly through self-exploitation of the products of R&D, or through royalty earnings from intellectual Property (IP).

PDF, 132.05 KB

Measuring Marketing: Using Content Analysis To Evaluate Relative Value In Valuation And Reasonable Royalty Analysis
By DeForest McDuff and Daryl Fairweather

In valuation and reasonable royalty analysis, economic experts often seek to measure the contribution of a technology to a particular product sold in the marketplace. In recent years, courts have instructed experts to apportion royalties and economic damages to the value contributed by a patented feature relative to non-patented features.1 While this instruction is straightforward in theory, experts are often left with the challenging task of reliably quantifying an apportionment for a specific feature within a complex product.

3D Printing And Public Policy
By John F. Hornick

Although legal principles apply to 3D printing the same as they apply to any other technology, 3D printing has the unique potential to upset the legal status quo. It is the potential scale of 3D printing that may have profound effects on the law. 3D printing cuts across many areas of law, most types of technology, and almost all types of products. Eventually, anyone may be able to make almost anything. No one else will know they made it or be able to control it, which I call 3D printing away from control.

PDF, 126.47 KB

Problems That Might Arise In Connection With The Transfer Of Intellectual Property Rights—From A Hungarian Perspective
By Michael Lantos

The present paper raises questions rather than provide solutions to the problems raised that concern disputes arising in connection with international assignments of intellectual property rights including patents, trademarks and associated technology.

PDF, 106.58 KB

Is It All In Our Nature?
By E. Kate Berezutskaya

When reviewing or negotiating a patent license to a nature-based product, it may be important to consider whether a claim directed to the nature-based product is patent-eligible. Both licensors and licensees may benefit from considering recent developments in U.S. patent law prior to renewing their license agreements or prior to entering into a new license agreement over nature-based products as a claim to a nature-based product must satisfy the markedly different standard in order to be valid, as discussed in more detail below.

PDF, 78.98 KB

A Question Of Evolution
By William Bird

At the LES conference “Commercial side of IP,” in Warsaw Poland on 18 November, 2015, a participant and speaker (see acknowledgements) raised a question as to the future evolution of global IP and the role of licensing and cross-licensing in it. The opinion was expressed that IP should be free to evolve without a need for revolution. An aim of the question was to begin a process of the IP community accepting and motivating a debate on the future evolution of IP. According to the participant this debate should not end up with a certain conclusion but should evolve in time and help the IP community to adapt itself to changing circumstances whereby in an evolutionary process the best adapters and the best adapted should win through. The following is a first take on this question.

PDF, 121.50 KB