Münchener Gespräche zur Rechtsprechung im Geistigen Eigentum und Wettbewerbsrecht
Georg Werner (Landgericht München I), Peter Picht (Universität Zürich)
Dr. Georg Werner (Vorsitzender Richter am Landgericht München I) und Prof. Dr. Peter Picht, LL.M. (Yale) (Universität Zürich)
Herzog-Max-Str. 4, 80333 München
Gemeinsame Veranstaltung des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb und des Vereins Freunde und ehemalige Mitarbeiter des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb e.V.
Anmeldung: alumni@ip.mpg.de
Eine Veranstaltung der GRUR
Anmeldung erforderlich
Auditorium
MIPLC Lecture Series mit Prof. Inge Graef
MIPLC-Unterrichtsraum, Herzog-Max-Str. 4, München
The EU’s regulatory framework for data has expanded into a dense architecture of related pieces of legislation. Legislative instruments such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the Data Act, and the Data Governance Act (DGA) seek to balance privacy, innovation, competition, and the free flow of data within the Digital Single Market. Yet their overlapping scopes and differing rationales raise the question of whether the EU has created a meaningful regime to regulate data or a legislative labyrinth that creates complicated challenges for compliance and enforcement.
This lecture explores the evolving logic of EU data governance —its normative foundations, institutional dynamics, and practical tensions. By examining how these instruments converge and conflict, it invites reflection on whether the EU’s data regime represents fragmentation or a carefully constructed mosaic of complementary rules.
Barbara Biasi (Yale University)
Online-Veranstaltung, auf Einladung, siehe Seminarseite
This paper studies the teaching of frontier knowledge in higher education and its impact on students. Using text analysis on 2 million course syllabi and 20 million academic articles, we develop a measure called “frontier knowledge proximity,” capturing how closely course content aligns with current scholarly research. We document significant variation in frontier knowledge proximity across courses, even within the same institution, and demonstrate that these differences substantially affect student outcomes. Linking syllabi to individual student records from Texas and leveraging unexpected syllabus updates, we show that increases in proximity improves both educational outcomes (graduation, major retention, and graduate school enrollment) and earnings. Educational gains are notably larger among median-ability and lowerincome students, whereas earnings benefits disproportionately accrue to higher-ability and higherincome students. These findings indicate that frontier knowledge exposure can narrow socioeconomic disparities in education but remains complementary to students’ existing resources. We conclude by showing that instructors, particularly research-active faculty, are the main drivers of differences in frontier knowledge proximity.
Ansprechpartnerin: Anastasiia Lutsenko
Eintragung in den Einladungsverteiler und mehr Informationen auf der Seminarseite.
David Pacuku (Kühne Logistics University)
Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, Herzog-Max-Str. 4, München
hybrid (Raum 342/Zoom)
We examine how repeated exposure influences the preference for highly novel ideas. We argue that the mere exposure effect fails to extend to such ideas. Instead, repeated exposure reduces preference by triggering a construal level misfit: evaluators seek concrete details, yet novel ideas offer primarily abstract information. This mismatch magnifies evaluators’ sense of unfamiliarity with each exposure. In a field study, we show that the usual mere-exposure-to-liking pathway reverses for highly novel ideas. In a subsequent quasi-experiment, we demonstrate that familiarity mediates this reversal: rather than growing more familiar with highly novel ideas, evaluators grow less familiar, which reduces their preference. These findings identify a critical boundary condition of the mere exposure effect precisely where innovation needs it most: highly novel ideas.
Ansprechpartner: Michael Rose
Eintragung in den Einladungsverteiler und mehr Informationen auf der Seminarseite.
Erin Leahey (University of Arizona)
online (Zoom)
How does a domain-spanning innovation achieve high impact and fulfill its transformative potential? To address this, recent research has wisely moved beyond studying the level of impact to examining the disruptive nature of impact: the degree to which an innovation departs from foundational work and undermines the status quo. This research reveals that the drivers of the two dimensions of impact are distinct, at least on the producer side. But fully addressing this question requires us to consider the audience side as well. We contend that how domain-spanning affects the level and disruptiveness of impact is contingent upon one feature of audiences: the degree to which they are partitioned into disconnected subsets. To test this, we focus on the realm of science and its prototypical form of domain-spanning: interdisciplinary research. Using data on thousands of scientists and over half a million scientific papers from the Web of Science, we find that spanning disciplines enhances both dimensions of impact. Importantly, when interdisciplinary research reaches a partitioned audience, the level of the research impact is stifled, but the disruptiveness is enhanced. We discuss how and why a more partitioned audience allows the ground-breaking potential of domain-spanning innovation to be realized.
Ansprechpartnerin: Marina Chugunova
Eintragung in den Einladungsverteiler und mehr Informationen auf der Seminarseite.
Gaia Dossi (Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance)
Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, Herzog-Max-Str. 4, München
hybrid (Raum 342/Zoom)
What are the consequences of the racial gap in science and innovation? I study this question by combining data on US patents, medical research articles, clinical trials, and research grants with the racial distribution of last names in the US population. Using last names as a proxy for race, I find that the racial composition of scientists affects the direction, as well as the rate, of medical research and innovation. First, Black scientists are three times as likely to design clinical trials with Black participants and twice as likely to publish articles focused on Black individuals. Second, Black scientists are more likely to research diseases frequent in the Black population, and white scientists in the white population. Third, I draw a link between race and the direction of research by focusing on diseases more common in Black individuals (e.g., sickle cell anemia) or white individuals (e.g., melanoma) due to evolutionary advantages in their ancestors’ countries of origin. Fourth, I document the impact of relative disease incidence on the direction of research by studying an exogenous change in HIV-related mortality among Black compared to white Americans. I estimate a general equilibrium Roy model with racial frictions and endogenous choice of occupation. Using the data, I quantify the parameters and estimate that removing barriers would increase the overall number of inventors by 1 p.p., a 10% increase from the baseline.
Ansprechpartnerin: Elisabeth Hofmeister
Eintragung in den Einladungsverteiler und mehr Informationen auf der Seminarseite.
Teilnahme auf Einladung
Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, Herzog-Max-Str. 4, München
Auditorium
09:30 Uhr – Ankunft, Registrierung, Begrüßungskaffee
10:00 Uhr – Impulsvorträge und Panel "Innovation and New Geopolitics – Implications for Research"
11:45 Uhr – Lunch, Impressionen zu Forschung und Standort, Führungen ab 12:30 Uhr
13:15 Uhr – Impulsvorträge und Panel "Regulation Between Global Challenges and Deglobalization"
15:00 Uhr – Zusammenfassende Bemerkungen
15:10 Uhr – Networking und Möglichkeit zum Austausch bei Forschungspostern des Instituts
Teilnahme auf Einladung
Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, Herzog-Max-Str. 4, München
Auditorium
15:30 Uhr – Ankunft, Registrierung, Begrüßungskaffee
16:00 Uhr – Grußworte
16:30 Uhr – Das neue HERZOG MAX
Thomas Fechtner (OSA Ochs Schmidhuber Architekten), Günter Koller (Wilhelm von Finck Hauptverwaltung GmbH) und Prof. Dr. Josef Drexl im Gespräch mit Dr. Jan-Martin Wiarda (Moderator)
16:45 Uhr – Erfrischungsgetränke und Impressionen zu Forschung und Standort
17:30 Uhr – Podiumsdiskussion „Informieren, beraten, gestalten – Innovationsforschung und Politik“
18:40 Uhr – Perspektiven des Instituts
Die Direktoren des Instituts Prof. Dr. Josef Drexl und Prof. Dietmar Harhoff, Ph.D. im Gespräch mit Dr. Jan-Martin Wiarda
18:50 Uhr – Networking und Ausklang
mit Gelegenheit zu Führungen durchs Haus
Tagung in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Verein „Freunde und ehemalige Mitarbeiter des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb e.V.“
Herzog-Max-Str. 4, München, Auditorium
The emergence and rapid advancement of new genomic techniques (NGTs) have sparked intense legal and policy debates in both health and agricultural biotechnology. NGTs allow for precise and efficient genetic modifications. In the health sector, the first CRISPR-based therapeutics are currently in development and testing, with broad global consensus around their transformative potential. In the agricultural sector, NGTs hold significant promise for enabling higher crop yields, greater varietal diversity, improved climate resilience, and reduced pesticide use.
Regulators have taken different stances towards NGTs. With respect to NGT plants, the United States and several other countries have adopted permissive frameworks that exempt NGT plants with minor genetic changes from strict GMO oversight. In contrast, the European Union, ruled in 2018 that all NGT plants fall under the 2001 GMO Directive - effectively treating them the same as traditional GMOs, subjecting NGT plants to a prohibitively costly and lengthy market authorization process. This stricter regulation of NGT plants has important implications for scientific innovation, investment, and the competitiveness of the EU. In response, the EU has initiated steps toward deregulation. In March 2025, the Council of the European Union agreed on a negotiating mandate for a revised regulatory framework on NGT plants.
Against this background, we will discuss the future of NGT regulation in Europe in two panels. The first panel will examine the scope and implications of the proposed EU deregulation compared to the current regime, with a focus on its impact on public and private sector research. The second panel will discuss one of the most contentious issues in ongoing negotiations: should NGT plants be eligible for patent protection? Across both panels, we will explore the broader consequences of regulatory choices for innovation, competition, and the future of biotechnology in Europe.
Konferenzbeschreibung als pdf (auf Englisch)
