The objectives of Socially Responsible Licensing (SRL) are mainly to ensure that licensing of intellectual assets is negotiated and transacted in a manner conducive to providing access to essential medicines and other life enhancing innovations. The goals of SRL are to make available to society globally, but in particular to developing countries, such technologies at affordable prices and to make proprietary research tools widely available for the advancement of knowledge. This can be achieved by adopting licensing practices which add a dimension of social responsibility to the pursuit of economic objectives, without necessarily compromising the latter. This approach does not affect business transactions in developed countries where significant profits can still be achieved but ensures access for the least developed countries, which are often disregarded in commercialization strategies due to perceived low profitability

This article describes a new voluntary licensing initiative for sustainable energy and environmental technologies launched by the Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA). 1. The program is called the Green Technology Package Program (GTPP). Its objective is international dissemination and implementation of sustainable energy and environmental technologies (“green technologies”). 2. Green technology is an umbrella term that includes, but is not limited to, solar, wind, wave, current, tidal, biofuel and biomass, waste to gas, smart grid and other IT, transport (electric vehicles, hybrid, diesel, natural gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG), hydrogen, vehicle to grid, train), geothermal, hydrogen fuel cells, new materials, thin film, construction, glass, aviation fuel and efficiency, storage (batteries), water filtration, desalination, purification, membranes, toxic remediation, carbon sequestration, and hybrid system technologies.

A single page, poster style chart accompanies this article, and provides an “at-a-glance” overview of a suggested strategy for prioritizing patent application efforts and resources. The chart, along with this explanation, incorporates the philosophy that a one-size-fits-all process for protecting Intellectual Property (IP) is far from ideal. Instead, what is suggested here is that inventions be stratified according to predicted economic value, so that effort and resource allocation can be prioritized. Additionally, this stratification should follow the invention through the patent application prosecution process

Many Technology Transfer Organizations have been implemented around the world in recent years. What is their purpose? Usually a dual scope is defined, namely to increase economic value and social value by ensuring the fullest use of the R&D results. This raises some essential questions. Does society per se benefit from an accelerated innovation process? How are the economic values and social values interconnected, how do they imply each other? What does benefit to people mean? To approach some possible answers to those questions, we take a closer look at two major problems humanity has to face—the ecological crisis and the extreme poverty on earth—and we investigate what part Technology Transfer could play to help.

There has been no previous research on the link between the license market and the stock market. Are the two markets integrated or coupled such that the valuation of the same portfolio of intangible assets is consistent across markets? This study tries to fill the research gap. Based on the data of royalty rate and Tobin’s q across 14 industries, the analysis demonstrates that the two markets are partially integrated, and that the valuations of intangible assets by the two markets are highly related, after a dummy variable is introduced to control two outlying sectors

You are a master at strategy. The cards in your hand show it. With a smile, you lay down your winning formula. “Gin!” you declare triumphantly. Your adversaries around the card table stare in disbelief. After a pause, one of them utters, ”But we’re playing poker, not gin rummy.

As a practitioner of intellectual property based business development, I am a firm believer that “amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.” I recently attended the LES Spring Meeting in Boston (“IP for Entrepreneurs and Universities, Commercializing Early Stage Technologies”) where one of the plenary speakers opined that patents just aren’t that important to certain fields of early stage technology development. Intrigued by this seemingly counterintuitive observation, I began to hear the same or similar statements from presenters and audience participants, and during the networking events. As I researched this paper, I began to find evidence of this same observation throughout the macroenvironment in which we, as licensing professionals, perform or contribute our services. If patents are not important to the development of early stage technology, why have we focused our attention on increasing the number of patents filed on early stage technologies and why do we credit this increase in patenting with the growth of the economy since the Bayh-Dole act became law in 1980? We find our profession at the confluence of many policies, goals, objectives and schools of thought that have their roots as far back as the beginning of the United States of America, and as recent as the latest judicial interpretation of our work. We are influenced by history, legislation, the regulatory environment and public policy, behavioral psychology, even the taxonomy and semantic interpretation of the language used in our field. We often face a multiplicity of stakeholders in our engagements, each of which has a different goal or objective, and each of which participates in and responds to our interaction using the same lens, but a different perspective and focal length. I would respectfully suggest that in order to be successful in our future endeavors, we must begin with the end in mind, and then proceed with the beginning in mind. Where are we, what do we have, and where do we need to get it to.

Making a license agreement for an invention allows the patentee not only to exercise his exclusive rights to this subject of industrial property, but also to find an optimal way of profit earning. In the Republic of Belarus any natural or legal person interested in use of the invention must conclude an agreement of grant of the right to use it with the patentee (license agreement).

As the world’s largest corporations face increased threats of patent litigation from their competitors and from nonpracticing entities (NPEs), the debate over U.S. patent reform continues. In each of the last five Congressional sessions, variants of a Patent Reform Act have been introduced, yet none have become law. One of the most widely discussed topics in the patent reform debate has been the issue of damages. Some view recent case law as unfairly limiting a patentee’s ability to recover adequate compensation, whereas others believe the current law frequently results in excessive jury awards.

Companies that develop and own software often have the need to communicate the business value of their software in a meaningful way. The question “what’s your software worth” often arises in many different contexts, such as when acquirers/investors are interested in assessing their options, licensees desire a reasonable exclusive royalty/license price, or stockholders look to measure the company’s management performance, to name just a few. When considering the value context of software, it is important to include all appropriate elements of value in the assessment and include all the software product components.