| Introduction |
|
ix | |
|
Chapter 1 The Purpose of Patents |
|
|
1 | (54) |
|
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
1.2 Patents as an incentive mechanism |
|
|
2 | (24) |
|
1.2.1 The key question of appropriability of returns for innovation |
|
|
3 | (4) |
|
1.2.2 Patents as a solution for the lack of appropriability |
|
|
7 | (4) |
|
1.2.3 Patents and their design |
|
|
11 | (11) |
|
1.2.4 Are patents a property right like any other? |
|
|
22 | (4) |
|
1.3 Patents as intangible assets |
|
|
26 | (25) |
|
1.3.1 From factory to fabless: the growing role of the obligation to disclose the content of patents |
|
|
27 | (3) |
|
1.3.2 The emergence of patents as intangible assets |
|
|
30 | (3) |
|
1.3.3 The delicate question of assessing patents as intangible assets |
|
|
33 | (7) |
|
1.3.4 Patents as funding leverage |
|
|
40 | (4) |
|
1.3.5 The commoditization of patents |
|
|
44 | (7) |
|
1.4 Case study: Intellectual Ventures Inc. |
|
|
51 | (4) |
|
Chapter 2 The Imprimatur of Patent Offices in the Face of Reforms |
|
|
55 | (56) |
|
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
2.2 The exponential demography of patents |
|
|
56 | (10) |
|
2.3 The impact of regulatory factors and legal decisions in the United States |
|
|
66 | (28) |
|
2.3.1 Patent continuations or "evergreening" |
|
|
72 | (2) |
|
|
|
74 | (20) |
|
2.4 Regulatory developments in Europe |
|
|
94 | (17) |
|
2.4.1 The unitary patent and the unified court: the final stage of a European patent system? |
|
|
97 | (6) |
|
2.4.2 The supposed economic advantages of the unitary system |
|
|
103 | (3) |
|
2.4.3 From intention to reality |
|
|
106 | (5) |
|
Chapter 3 The Judiciarization of Patents |
|
|
111 | (66) |
|
|
|
111 | (2) |
|
3.2 Should patent trolls be tracked down? |
|
|
113 | (22) |
|
3.2.1 A class of heterogeneous actors |
|
|
115 | (2) |
|
3.2.2 The business model of litigation PAEs |
|
|
117 | (4) |
|
3.2.3 What is the scale of this phenomenon? |
|
|
121 | (5) |
|
3.2.4 The consequences for innovation |
|
|
126 | (3) |
|
3.2.5 A longstanding and potentially beneficial role |
|
|
129 | (5) |
|
3.2.6 Proposals for reforms |
|
|
134 | (1) |
|
3.3 Standards and patents: a necessary but tense coexistence |
|
|
135 | (37) |
|
3.3.1 FRAND licenses as safeguards for essential patents |
|
|
136 | (3) |
|
3.3.2 The hold-up theory faced with the facts |
|
|
139 | (6) |
|
3.3.3 The availability of injunctions |
|
|
145 | (14) |
|
|
|
159 | (3) |
|
|
|
162 | (2) |
|
3.3.6 "Best FRAND forever" or the delicate question of royalty amounts |
|
|
164 | (8) |
|
3.4 Case study: sovereign patent funds |
|
|
172 | (5) |
|
Chapter 4 A New Place under the Sun for Patents? |
|
|
177 | (40) |
|
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
4.2 The patent as one innovation policy instrument among many |
|
|
178 | (14) |
|
4.2.1 Innovation awards, or how to rehabilitate an old approach |
|
|
179 | (3) |
|
4.2.2 Could innovation awards replace patents? |
|
|
182 | (5) |
|
4.2.3 Complementarity with support for R&D efforts |
|
|
187 | (2) |
|
4.2.4 An example of complementarity between instruments: low-carbon innovation |
|
|
189 | (3) |
|
4.3 Patents in support of open innovation strategies |
|
|
192 | (19) |
|
4.3.1 Patent pools as a premise for open innovation |
|
|
193 | (5) |
|
4.3.2 From R&D cooperation to open innovation |
|
|
198 | (6) |
|
4.3.3 Why is open innovation so "patent-compatible?" |
|
|
204 | (4) |
|
4.3.4 Patents at the center of intermediate innovation |
|
|
208 | (3) |
|
4.4 Case study: "My patents are yours" --- development in the Tesla case |
|
|
211 | (6) |
| Conclusion |
|
217 | (4) |
| Bibliography |
|
221 | (30) |
| Index |
|
251 | |