Comments on: Patent Licensing in Europe – Still A Long Way To Go http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=707 Tue, 31 Aug 2010 05:00:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Nick White http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=707&cpage=1#comment-1374 Nick White Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:59:48 +0000 http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=707#comment-1374 ipeg, Thank you for your observations on my comments. I think you are right that in many cases the patent filings are instigated early in the commercial cycle so market related competitive input is not available. This is especially the case when you are looking at patents filed by Universities or spin-outs. But for established businesses that are well aware of their markets and opportunities there is a big difference I feel between the US and EP approaches to patent procurement. Good "near" market opportunities (not rocket science inventions) are often overlooked. It is these near market patents that are often the ones most suitable and effective for licensing. I think one of the reasons for this difference is that there is some evidence that EP companies especially in the SME sector have not fully embraced innovation process management techniques and processes within their companies. There are plenty of missed opportunities. US companies in general have the lead on using these processes and techniques and so miss fewer opportunities. Nick White Tangible IP ipeg,

Thank you for your observations on my comments. I think you are right that in many cases the patent filings are instigated early in the commercial cycle so market related competitive input is not available. This is especially the case when you are looking at patents filed by Universities or spin-outs.

But for established businesses that are well aware of their markets and opportunities there is a big difference I feel between the US and EP approaches to patent procurement. Good “near” market opportunities (not rocket science inventions) are often overlooked. It is these near market patents that are often the ones most suitable and effective for licensing.

I think one of the reasons for this difference is that there is some evidence that EP companies especially in the SME sector have not fully embraced innovation process management techniques and processes within their companies. There are plenty of missed opportunities. US companies in general have the lead on using these processes and techniques and so miss fewer opportunities.

Nick White
Tangible IP

]]> By: ipeg http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=707&cpage=1#comment-1373 ipeg Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:35:42 +0000 http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=707#comment-1373 Quality of patents in relation to "marketability" is, as we all know, not an easy issue to resolve. Mainly because many inventions are being made at a level or time that no one yet knows what the market will do, if anything. Some patents are being applied for as a result of a meeting between peers in the industry (engineers conventions, academic presentations, R&D output presentations, etc) where one becomes aware of a certain "development" in a particular industry that seems to indicate a certain direction the market will follow. Everyone runs back to his/her company, reports what he/she hears, then patent filings are done trying to cover as much as you can to make sure you get a piece of the future cake. As we know out of the many applications only a very few will make it potentially to market, and from those many ultimately fail. Companies with deep IP pockets will not want to take the risk that the miss the boat so they file. even if they know a majority of the patents will never materialize in a product. (will blog about this later in a blog related to the licensing entry). ipeg Quality of patents in relation to “marketability” is, as we all know, not an easy issue to resolve. Mainly because many inventions are being made at a level or time that no one yet knows what the market will do, if anything. Some patents are being applied for as a result of a meeting between peers in the industry (engineers conventions, academic presentations, R&D output presentations, etc) where one becomes aware of a certain “development” in a particular industry that seems to indicate a certain direction the market will follow. Everyone runs back to his/her company, reports what he/she hears, then patent filings are done trying to cover as much as you can to make sure you get a piece of the future cake. As we know out of the many applications only a very few will make it potentially to market, and from those many ultimately fail. Companies with deep IP pockets will not want to take the risk that the miss the boat so they file. even if they know a majority of the patents will never materialize in a product. (will blog about this later in a blog related to the licensing entry).
ipeg

]]> By: Nick White http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=707&cpage=1#comment-1369 Nick White Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:52:12 +0000 http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=707#comment-1369 Interesting article. Perhaps the lower European activity could be linked to other factors; quality of patents for example. What I mean by quality in this context is the relevance and scope of patent claims vs. the market. As a general rule if your patents have broader commercial impact there are more licensing opportunities. I think it is well known that US companies historically have stolen a march on companies in other jurisdictions when it comes to generating commercially relevant patent portfolios. Also, in Europe claim scope can be considerably narrower than the US counterparts for example, again resulting in less licensing opportunities. You also have the “litigation” effect. Nothing brings parties to the negotiating table quicker than the prospect of humongous lawyer bills. The US companies have that incentive to a greater extent than Europe/Japan, where patent litigation is on average cheaper and very much a last resort. I agree with both your suggestions and those made by Joff. They are not mutually exclusive. More education and more government action would both be useful. However, in licensing you can only work with what you have so at the same time European companies (and their patent attorneys) have to get much smarter about the product they produce for the hapless European licensing executive. There is only so much they can do with a sow’s ear! Nick White Tangible IP Interesting article.

Perhaps the lower European activity could be linked to other factors; quality of patents for example. What I mean by quality in this context is the relevance and scope of patent claims vs. the market. As a general rule if your patents have broader commercial impact there are more licensing opportunities. I think it is well known that US companies historically have stolen a march on companies in other jurisdictions when it comes to generating commercially relevant patent portfolios.

Also, in Europe claim scope can be considerably narrower than the US counterparts for example, again resulting in less licensing opportunities.

You also have the “litigation” effect. Nothing brings parties to the negotiating table quicker than the prospect of humongous lawyer bills. The US companies have that incentive to a greater extent than Europe/Japan, where patent litigation is on average cheaper and very much a last resort.

I agree with both your suggestions and those made by Joff. They are not mutually exclusive. More education and more government action would both be useful.

However, in licensing you can only work with what you have so at the same time European companies (and their patent attorneys) have to get much smarter about the product they produce for the hapless European licensing executive. There is only so much they can do with a sow’s ear!

Nick White
Tangible IP

]]>