Research News

Download the Position Statement! (english)

Download the Position Statement! (chinese)

A video with Dietmar Harhoff on “Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets” has been published on Latest Thinking. lt.org is a platform unlocking frontier research to the public. Everyone interested in science should be able to access the world’s cutting-edge research - yet, most scientific publications address an expert audience only. The researchers personally explain their latest insights into the realities of life.

Dietmar Harhoff gives answers to the question whether the instrument of opposition during the patent filing process needs to be improved. Patents are a very useful tool for supporting innovations by setting incentives for companies to invest in research and developments. However, only those innovations should be protected by a patent that are truly inventive. Otherwise, patents might actually end up stifling innovations rather than supporting them. This happens in the case of patent thickets where there are overlapping patents that block each other. Dietmar Harhoff explains that this situation should be avoided by the mechanism of opposition: After the patent is granted by the patent examiner, third parties have the opportunity to oppose the examiner’s decision. As described in this video, the researchers used graph theory to analyze patent thickets involving three companies to uncover in which situations this instrument fails. Their findings indicate that, if a patent holder is embedded in such a thicket, they are less likely to challenge a patent application to avoid an escalation between the parties that might end up in court. Furthermore, if there is a large number of companies that could oppose a certain patent, the incentive for any of these companies to oppose is reduced as only one of them has to shoulder the costs of the process while all of them benefit.

Watch here

Position Statement

Download of the position statement!
(Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/en/link/positionpaper-data-2016-08-16.html)

Download the Position Statement!

English version (Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/link/patent-protection-en.html)

Japanese version (Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/link/patent-protection-jp.html)

Chinese version (Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/link/patent-protection-chin.html)

Portuguese version (Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/link/patent-protection-port.html)

Spanish version (Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/link/patent-protection-es.html)

List of authors

List of further contributors

Signing the declaration
If you want to sign the declaration as a supporter, please send us your name, title, affiliation and function to patentdeclaration(at)ip.mpg.de.

List of supporters

The Ministry had commissioned the Max Plank Institute for Innovation and Competition to prepare the study in order to provide a better empirical basis for legal-political discussions of copyright law in the digital age.

Digitalization is a key driver for innovations and the emergence of new business models. Internet-based value-creation processes are increasingly changing the basic conditions for creativity while at the same time opening up new ways to disseminate and use many different types of content. Accordingly, copyright as a legal instrument to promote innovation and creativity is also confronted with new challenges. Its role in this context must be determined not only from a legal, but also from an economic perspective. Basic groundwork for this task includes charting and analyzing those technological and economic changes that digitalization and interconnectedness entail. Trends regarding technological developments and value-creation models are particularly visible in the kinds of young enterprises that are currently introducing innovative, internet-based business models. If there is a connection between their business models and copyright law, this connection can make it possible to draw conclusions as to which basic legal conditions might influence innovation in digital markets in a positive or a negative way.

For the study, 40 startups with internet-based business models were surveyed, whereby “startup” was defined as an enterprise under ten years old implementing an innovative business model or innovative technology and striving for significant growth. The goal of the interviews with the startups was to determine which parameters of copyright law the entrepreneurs saw as containing a potential for conflict with their own business model. Thus the first step was to determine what role copyright-protected content played in the creation of value and who the authors of this content were. Next, it was ascertained what copyright-related questions, insecurities or risks arose for the startups with regard to this content. Finally, the entrepreneurs were asked how they responded to these challenges in their day-to-day business.

The study was commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and carried out jointly by the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition and the Center for Digital Technology and Management (CDTM). A multidisciplinary analysis taking technical, economic and legal aspects into account, the study reveals many of the challenges faced by German copyright law with respect to innovation in digital markets. The work thus provides an empirical basis for drafting proposals for a reform of German copyright law.

Die vorliegende Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb befasst sich mit dem Referentenentwurf des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz für ein Gesetz zur Anpassung patentrechtlicher Vorschriften aufgrund der europäischen Patentreform (im Folgenden: Begleitgesetz-Entwurf). Die Stellungnahme verfolgt einen dreifachen Zweck.

Erstens werden ergänzende Regelungen vorgeschlagen, die eine Umgehung der Einrede der doppelten Inanspruchnahme erschweren sollen. Es wird insbesondere angeregt, auf die Voraussetzung der Parteiidentität auf der Klägerseite zu verzichten, um einen angemessenen Beklagtenschutz zu gewährleisten.

Zweitens wird die geplante teilweise Aufhebung des Doppelschutzverbotes einer kritischen Würdigung im Lichte der Ziele der EU-Patentreform unterzogen. Die Stellungnahme spricht sich für ein umfassendes Doppelschutzverbot aus.

Schließlich werden Vorschläge unterbreitet, die gewisse Gestaltungsspielräume des Übereinkommens über ein Einheitliches Patentgericht (im Folgenden: EPGÜ) und des Europäischen Patentübereinkommens (im Folgenden: EPÜ) nutzen, um Rechtsunsicherheiten und Ungleichbehandlungen vorzubeugen, die sich aus der EU-Patentreform ergeben können. Diese Vorschläge betreffen insbesondere:

(i) Die Schaffung einer Umwandlungsmöglichkeit des Einheitspatents in eine nationale Patentanmeldung im Fall einer Nichtigerklärung aufgrund des Art. 139 Abs. 2 EPÜ;

(ii) die Schließung möglicher unionswidriger Lücken, die sich aus der Nicht-Umsetzung der Art. 8-10 Abs. 1 BioPat-RL im EPGÜ ergeben könnten;

(iii) die Anpassung des PatG an die materiellen Normen des EPGÜ.

PDF herunterladen

The European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP) is a group of scholars in the fields of intellectual property and private international law. It was established in 2004 and has regularly met to discuss issues of intellectual property, private international law and jurisdiction since then. The Group has drafted a set of principles on conflict of laws in intellectual property and tends to provide independent advice to European and national law makers. The Group is funded by the Max Planck Society.

Principles on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property
The Group has prepared Principles on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP Principles). These Principles cover international jurisdiction, the applicable law, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the field of intellectual property. The Principles are scheduled to be published with comments and notes in 2012 by Oxford University Press.

On August 31, 2011 the Group advanced the Final Text of the Principles. This text was presented to an interested audience during a conference on the CLIP Principles on November 4–5, 2011 at the Harnack-Haus in Berlin. After the Conference, this text has been subject to few editorial amendments and replaced by the Final Text of December 1, 2011.

Final Text – December 1, 2011

In order to facilitate its accessibility, the Final Text of the Principles has been translated into different languages by scholars and practitioners working in the fields of intellectual property and private international law. The following non-authentic translations are available:

Chinese translation
German translation
Spanish translation

Preceding the final Text, in an effort to communicate to the public at large the results achieved up to then, the Group made available a Draft and three Preliminary Drafts.

First Preliminary Draft – April 8, 2009
Second Preliminary Draft – June 6, 2009
Third Preliminary Draft –September 1, 2010
The Draft – March 25, 2011

Recommendations to European and national law makers
The Group has made recommendations to the European legislator on issues of jurisdiction, conflict of laws and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Comments on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations („Rome I“) of December 15, 2005 and the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs’ Draft Report on the Proposal of August 22, 2006

Exclusive Jurisdiction and Cross-Border IP (Patent) Infringement – Suggestions for Amendment of the Brussels I Regulation (published in: (2007) EIPR 195).

Das tendenzielle Kräfteungleichgewicht zwischen Kreativen und ihren Vertragspartner ist bis zu einem gewissen Grade systembedingt. Versuche, dieses Ungleichgewicht mittels regulato-rischer Eingriffe in die Vertragsfreiheit auszugleichen, haben in Deutschland Tradition. Der letzte Anlauf dazu erfolgte 2002 durch das Gesetz zur Stärkung der vertraglichen Stellung von Urhebern und ausübenden Künstlern. Jenes hat nach Auffassung der Bundesregierung – namentlich im Hinblick auf die angemessene Vergütung (§§ 11, 32 Abs. 1 UrhG) – nicht die erhofften Wirkungen gezeitigt.

Vor diesem Hintergrund erscheint das Anliegen einer „Nachbesserung“ im Grundsatz unter-stützungswürdig, wobei allzu weitreichende Erwartungen kaum berechtigt wären. Weder darf das Urheberrecht hinsichtlich seiner Funktionen überfordert werden; mit Recht verweist der Referentenentwurf in der Begründung denn auch auf das oftmals bestehende Überangebot an freiberuflichen Urhebern und deren teilweise Bereitschaft hin, niedrige Bezahlungen zu ak-zeptieren (S. 14). Noch dürfen gesetzliche Vorgaben die deutsche Kulturwirtschaft in einem Ausmaß belasten, bei dem Investitionsanreize beeinträchtigt werden könnten. Sicherzustellen ist vielmehr in erster Linie, dass das genannte Kräfteungleichgewicht in jenen Konstellationen ausgeglichen werden kann, in denen es sich zulasten einzelner Akteure dysfunktional auszu-wirken droht. Indessen darf nicht außer Acht bleiben, dass der Grundsatz die Vertragsfreiheit ist, während dessen Einschränkung der Rechtfertigung bedarf. Nicht Aufgabe des Urhebervertragsrechts ist es namentlich, eine erfolgreiche Verwertung geschützter Werke zu garantieren (Referentenentwurf S. 12).

PDF herunterladen