Think IP Strategy

Fail to Monitor IP (no. 34 in our list of IP mistakes)

Lee — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:18:57 +0000

Einstein said: “life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving.” Similarly, with businesses and business strategy. A business that does not move forward will lose its balance between profiting from existing business enterprises and building (or acquiring) new enterprises for future growth. Consider Kodak, a US colossus recently in the news, that focused so heavily on its existing film business that it failed to effectively harness the new digital era which it created, and is now entering Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Kodak is not alone. Numerous companies have fallen to complacency, or reliance on one business which became vulnerable to new competition, for example from cheaper emerging markets or new technological advances.

So what does this have to do with monitoring IP? Well, let’s make the reasonable assumption that businesses learn their historical lessons and endeavor, as part of their business models, to always try to move forward to create sustainable growth, be that, for example, through market expansion, improved or new products, new partnerships, diversification, consolidation etc. Let’s also assume, for arguments sake, that generally companies file patent applications and develop other IP to support the business as it develops. This leads to two distinct IP monitoring needs.

First, as a business creates (or acquires) new IP, there’s a continual need to monitor that IP and existing IP in established areas to ensure that the overall portfolio continues to adequately protect and support the business, and, where appropriate, provides the necessary leverage to help shape the market. As a standard bicycle is useless if static, similarly the IP portfolio, which needs to be regularly shaped and honed to maximum company benefit, including culling and monetizing IP assets no longer core to the business. This on-going process of shaping and honing is now supported by increasingly sophisticated IP management systems to help assess the financial and strategic benefit of IP assets.

Of course, there is another side to the coin. The competition is also building and shaping their IP portfolios in response to company business plans and the marketplace. A company that does not, or does not effectively and timely, monitor the competitor IP in areas of interest will not fully appreciate risks to and opportunities for the company. Risks that may only later become apparent when the company is blocked from effectively entering a market or a new field. Opportunities that are missed because the company fails to appreciate the direction a competitor is taking or an area of opportunity that it is leaving open or wishes to monetize. Businesses build their plans with a keen eye to the competition and the overall playing field. By effectively monitoring the IP of others in their field of interest, a company can further anticipate and project risks and opportunities for the business, and develop more refined strategies which include IP offense and defense.

(This is number 34 in our list of IP mistakes and how to avoid them.)

(Image credit: left-hand)

Pharma & Biotech Global Week in Review 8 Feb 2012 from IP Think Tank

Marie Louise — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:48:25 +0000

Here is Think IP Strategy’s weekly selection of top Pharma & Biotech intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet.

Highlights this week included:

Canada: Supreme Court issues decision in Merck Frosst v Canada (Health) concerning Access to Information request regarding new drug submission by competitor (Excess Copyright)

Escitalopram – Netherlands: District Court of The Hague finds escitalopram patent partially valid: Lundbeck v Tiefenbacher (EPLAW)

Please join the discussion by adding your comments on any of these stories, and please do let us know if you think we’ve missed something important, or if there is a source you think should be monitored.

General

Another Indian generics company, Emcure, signs with patent pool (IP Watch)

Could co-operation help pull pharma back from the cliff edge? (IAM)

WHO group to consult on pandemic flu framework in lead-up to assembly (IP Watch)

Is the polio vaccine an anti-patent success story? (BIOtechNOW)

Canada: Supreme Court issues decision in Merck Frosst v Canada (Health) concerning Access to Information request regarding new drug submission by competitor (Excess Copyright)

Canadian pharma: High prices, low research & development (Michael Geist)

Macau: Patent term extension in Macau (The SPC Blog) (The SPC Blog)

US: A solution in search of a problem: Safety of Untested and New Devices Act of 2012 (FDA Law Blog)

US: GAO report criticizes FDA on antibiotic labeling; finds no evidence of encouraged innovation (FDA Law Blog)

US: Senators Casey and McCain introduce bill to streamline de novo process and reclassify preamendment devices (FDA Law Blog)

US: CAFC interprets 35 USC 135(b) in Adair v Carter (IPBiz) (Patent Docs)

US: District Court finds that deadline to file PTA action was tolled by request for reconsideration: Bristol Meyers Squibb v Kappos (Pharma Patents)

US: How to best protect patents on new synthetic processes and intermediates in United States: Understanding “material change” exception (IIPRD)

US: Enzo files patent infringement suits against Gen-Probe, Life Technology and Roche Molecular Systems based on defendants’ nucleic acid probe products (Patent Docs)

US: Exelixis files for PTA calculation review for patent entitled ‘Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase Inhibitors and Methods of Their Use’ (Patent Docs)

Products

Advocin (Fluoroquinolone) – US: Bayer Healthcare files patent infringement suit against Pfizer based on planned launch of Advocin (Patent Docs)

Atorvastatin – EU: What is obvious – the route or the destination? T-777/08 Atorvastatin Polymorphs (IPKat)

Carac (Fluorouracil) – US: Valeant International files patent infringement complaint against Spear Pharmaceuticals in response to Para IV certification (Patent Docs)

Dexilant (Dexalansoprazole) – US: Takeda files patent infringement suit against Sandoz following Para IV challenge (Patent Docs)

Escitalopram – Netherlands: District Court of The Hague finds escitalopram patent partially valid: Lundbeck v Tiefenbacher (EPLAW)

Fortamet (Metformin) – US: CAFC stays relief pending appeal: Sciele Pharma v Lupin (Patently-O)

Gemzar (Gemcitabine) – France: Inventive step of a glycosylation process (Kluwer Patent Blog)

Lovenox (Enoxaparin) – US: DC District Court grants FDA summary judgment in generic Lovenox dispute: Sanofi-Aventis v FDA (FDA Law Blog)

Lumigan (Bimatoprost) – US: Allergan files patent infringement suit against Hi-Tech following Para IV challenge (Patent Docs)

Nexium (Esomeprazole) – US: Astrazeneca files patent infringement complaint against Torrent Pharmaceuticals following Para IV certification (Patent Docs)

Simcor (Niacin / Simvastatin) – US: Abbott Laboratories files patent infringement suit against Sandoz in reponse to Para IV certification filing (Patent Docs)

Treat IP as a Cost Center (no. 24 in our list of IP mistakes)

Lee — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:20:37 +0000

I suspect that most IP Strategists have, at one time or another, used or referenced the Intellectual Capital Pyramid from Edison in the Boardroom (Davis & Harrison, 2001) to try to expand the C-Suite understanding of the value of IP/IC beyond the Legal function. You’ll recall the five levels from the base “Defensive” to “Cost Control”, “Profit Center”, “Integrated”, and finally to the apex level “Visionary”.

Clearly, it’s important in most organizations to try to move beyond use of IP for purely defensive purposes, and by add some rigor in the management of IP portfolios to control costs and continually align with business plans and goals, the IP group is naturally brought into contact with, and over time can be integrated with, other departments. Here, as in Edison in the Boardroom, I use “integration” in the sense of integrating company practices: defense; cost control; revenue (profit) generation, leading to an organization where IP is no longer a purely legal asset.

So controlling costs is not the issue; it’s a very necessary element in developing an “Integrated” and perhaps ultimately a “Visionary” use of IP (and more broadly Intellectual Capital) to influence and shape markets. The mistake of “treating IP as a Cost Center” refers to something quite different. This is a potentially very destructive mindset, whereby a senior influential individual or an organization considers IP purely in terms of the cost to the company to obtain and maintain IP.

Although individuals and organizations may espouse the value of IP, and may even introduce good practices and incentives to generate new IP, the fog of reining in increasing IP costs can very quickly move across an organization, blinding it to the value that maintaining and adding IP can bring and pushing it back down the IC pyramid to a Defensive position. The consequences may be devastating, including many described in other Mistakes in our List, from losing market opportunities to exclusion from a market or market segment and others.

Demonstrating IP value to the C-Suite, ideally through examples of successes and financial returns, is a continual challenge faced by IP Strategists and Heads of IP in most organizations. Even with a very enlightened and supportive CEO, others in senior positions can chip away at the IP strategy bedrock in the name of cost-efficiencies, especially if the IP budget is formally within their domain. Effective communication and natural or learned skills of persuasion are critical assets of the IP Strategist/Head of IP in today’s IP-centric world. Without them, the fog may never clear.

(This is number 24 in our list of IP mistakes and how to avoid them.)

(Image credit: Images of Money)

China Update 6 February 2012 from IP Think Tank / 中国知识产权动向，2012年2月6日来自IP Think Tank

Apeng — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:32:31 +0000

Go to / 转向:

Weekly IP news highlights from China and around the globe / 本周中国和国际上的知识产权新闻和博客精选

Fail to Abandon IP (no. 35 in our list of IP mistakes)/ 未能放弃多余的知识产权（知识产权错误分析系列之三十五）

The Tortoise and the Hare / 速度不是一切——关于龟兔赛跑的联想

Weekly IP news highlights from China and around the globe /本周中国和国际上的知识产权新闻和博客精选

Here is Think IP Strategy’s weekly selection of China-focused intellectual property news as well as some of the biggest news from around the globe breaking in the blogosphere and internet.

以下是Think IP Strategy发布的每周中国知识产权动态以及本周国际上发生的重要的知识产权新闻。这些新闻来源于新闻网站和专业人士的博客圈。

请参加我们的讨论，发表您的评论。如果您认为我们遗漏了其他的重要信息，或者您认为有其他的重要资源应当注意，请联系我们。

Highlights from around the globe/ 本周国际上的知识产权新闻：

Sweden: Pirate Bay founders’ prison sentences final, Supreme Court appeal rejected /瑞典对海盗湾发起人作出最终刑事判决，当事人向最高法院提出的上诉被驳回(TorrentFreak) (The 1709 Blog) (Ars Technica)

FRAND – European Commission opens proceedings against Samsung / 欧盟对三星是否滥用市场支配地位启动调查 (PatLit) (Out-Law) (Tangible IP) (Ars Technica) (FOSS Patents)

EFF ready to sue if “innocent customers” can’t get Megaupload data back / 电子前锋基金会声称，如果善意使用人无法从Megaupload取回数据，将起诉Megaupload (Ars Technica) (EFF) (Internet Cases) (EFF) (TorrentFreak) (Ars Technica) (Ars Technica)

WHO, Gates, industry and NGO leaders elevate attention to neglected diseases /世界卫生组织、盖茨及其他行业领袖、非政府组织启动合作，为最贫困人群提供医疗援助 (IP Watch) (Spicy IP)

European Commission orders Italy to drop patent linkage delaying generics /欧盟要求意大利实施专利扣合制度 (IP Watch)

EU: Taking unfair advantage: VIAGUARA successfully opposed: Case T-332/10 / 欧盟法院对Viaguara诉Pfizer公司的商标纠纷案作出判决，Viaguara的诉讼请求被驳回 (IPKat) (Class 46)

General / 综合

An interview with Mr. Jiang Zhipei, judge of IP division of Supereme Court / 见证十年间的变化——专访原最高人民法院知识产权庭庭长蒋志培 (China IP Magazine)

IP transaction brings new opportunities for middle and small business / 知识产权贸易开拓商机——中小企升级转型业务腾飞 (China IP Maganize)

Patents / 专利

Strategy analysis on patent acquisition / 专利收购策略分析 (China IP Magazine)

Patent transaction platform / EIT项目：一场专利技术交易“接力赛”(China IP Magazine)

Patent transactions in business merger and acquisition / 企业并购背后的专利交易 (China IP Magazine)

Trademarks / 商标

Apple file appeal with Higher People’s Court of Guangdong in their failed iPad trademark lawsuit case / 苹果就”iPad”商标纠纷向广东高级人民法院提出上诉(China Hearsay)

Advice to Chinese trademark holders on how to respond to rush registration in Germany or Europe / 中国商标在德国或欧盟遭遇“恶意抢注”的应对方法 (China IP Magazine)

New strategy of Yongjiu, the famous Chinese brand of bycicle /“永久”换装上路 (China IP Magazine)

Copyright / 著作权

A discussion on copyright of TV programs / 电视节目模式是个啥？ (Zhang Weijun’s Blog)

An analysis on protection period for the of right of publication / 对“发表权”保护期限的一点看法 (Zhang Weijun’s Blog)

未能放弃多余的知识产权（知识产权错误分析系列之三十五）

[我们前面的博客文章的翻译 Fail to Abandon IP (no. 35 in our list of IP mistakes).]

作者：Robert 2012年1月31日

自然界的一些规则可以适用于知识产权领域——某些策略具有共通性。例如，大自然通常会淘汰掉低能低效的生物，除非这些低能低效的生物有很强的再生能力（大自然用他们来显示生物的在再生能力）。又例如，生物种群的特性决定了鸟类应当体轻且具有适合飞行的线条，但许多雄鸟都有很大且无用的尾部——这用来证明它经过了优胜劣汰而存活下来——即使它有如此重的负，但仍然存活下来。

保留某些不常使用的知识产权的唯一原因，就是某些特定情况下，知识产权的数量（而非质量）具有决定性影响。那些没有针对性目的的知识产权，在维持、审查方面的成本就是一项额外的负担。如果成本负担不能提供竞争优势，则必定使权利人处于劣势（相对那些无此负担的人而言）。

知识资产管理中的领先企业——陶氏化学，早年集中精力优化其知识产权资产自合，节省了数百万美元的知识产权管理费用，不必再费时费力剔除无用的知识产权资产。这也是该公司致力于将现有的知识产权资产发挥最大的效用。保留必需的，舍弃无用的，管理并用尽现有资产——这是适用于所有资产管理的原则。

（本文是“知识产权策略错误分析”系列文章中的第35篇）。

速度不是一切——关于龟兔赛跑的联想

[我们前面的博客文章的翻译 The Tortoise and the Hare.]

作者：Robert 2012年2月2日

假期中，我和朋友参加了一个寻宝游戏。这个游戏提醒了我：赢得一场比赛的关键是正确理解你参与的比赛的各项要素。这个寻宝游戏包括寻找12条线索，正确回答12个问题，答复如何找到与线索有关的物体。有十几支团队参加了本次游戏，他们都被告知了游戏的规则：找到全部线索并全部正确回答所有问题的前三组团队将是赢家。所以，当游戏开始后，每个人都急冲冲地开始寻找线索回答问题。当我们进行到第四个问题时，我和我的搭档被绊住了。所以，我预感我们不可能首先完成任务，甚至觉得我们将最后一个完成任务。然而，最终我们在获奖之列，因为我们所有的答案都是正确的。虽然这个寻宝游戏是以竞赛的形式进行，但是答案的准确度——而不是速度——是决定输赢的基本要件，而速度则是同等条件下决胜的最后因素。

看到这里，是否想起了在知识产权领域看到过同样的现象？知识产权，尤其是在那些“先登记”国家，抢先是决胜的条件。但是，所有的发明以质量为前提和基础，而后“先登记”才是赢得胜利的最后一项要素。在这个寻宝游戏中，我们发现龟兔赛跑的道理很适合于这个游戏：不要总想着在速度上超过对手。很多人急于回答完所有的问题，因而很多答案错误。

当然本文并非建议公司在研发方面降速——我的书名是《超过竞争对手》（这是作者关于知识产权策略的一本书）——我的意思是：速度是同等条件下的决定胜负的最终因素，但是不要忽视那些决定胜利的基本条件，例如质量。