Successful patent management also differs depending on the technological domain. This chapter looks at technological fields that are on the rise, fields such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, industry 4.0, software, artificial intelligence, and the blockchain. Managing these technologies requires different approaches to patenting and commercialization since they cross-cutout across industries and are still in their early states. Fields such as biotechnology have raised deep ethical and moral concerns, while technologies such as the blockchain questions the industrial-era notion of patentability. In contrast to the nuts, bolts, and processes of patent management, this chapter offers to readers a bit of a wider context as well as a broader and intellectually more mature view on the patent system.
A selected portion of this chapter, i.e., “Artificial intelligence-based business models,” was previously published in the chapter Bader MA and Stummeyer C (2019) The role of innovation and IP in AI-based business models; in: Baierl R, Behrens J and Brem A (eds): Digital Entrepreneurship – Interfaces Between Digital Technologies and Entrepreneurship; Springer: Heidelberg, pp. 23–56. Used with permission.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
US 4,736,866 (“Harvard-Maus”/“Oncomouse”).
Stiftung Science et Cité (2004).
CRISPR = Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.
Fourth Industrial Revolution is the term used by Klaus Schwab, founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, in his recent book on this subject (Schwab 2017).
See, e.g., “Industry 4.0” (Germany), “Nouvelle France Industrielle” (France), “Fabricca Intelligente” (Italy), “Industria Conectada 4.0” (Spain), “Made Different” (Belgium), “Prumysl 4.0” (Czech Republic), “Smart Industry” (Slovakia), “Production 2014” (Sweden), “MADE” (Denmark), “Produktion der Zukunft” (Austria), and “Smart Industry” (The Netherlands).
Source: In re Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsawk, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, Mayo v. Prometheus and Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.
The terms “patent family,” “patent application,” “patent filing,” or “invention” may be used interchangeably, referring to the representative patent family member and the corresponding invention. A patent family may include members for which patents have been granted, others not granted or still under patent examination. A patent family includes all those patents in different offices that relate to the same or similar technical content. The earliest application in the family has what is known as the priority number, and other applications in the family share one or more pieces of priority data for the purposes of novelty and inventive step. There are different definitions of patent families; for the displayed data and charts patent families are used that are grouping together the same invention sharing the exact priority data seeking patent protection in different jurisdictions (WIPO 2019).
Note: A patent may refer to more than one category.
https://www.hyperledger.org. This effort is part of a broader Russian initiative to advance blockchain technologies, spearheaded by the IPchain Association (https://ipchain.global/association/). This system can be accessed using the blockchain node at: peer-1.ipchain.ipchain.ru (specialized software required).
Bader, M. A. (2007). Managing intellectual property in a collaborative environment: Learning from IBM. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 1(3), 206–225.
Bader, M. A., & Stummeyer, C. (2019). The role of innovation and IP in AI-based business models. In R. Baierl, J. Behrens, & A. Brem (Eds.), Digital entrepreneurship – interfaces between digital technologies and entrepreneurship (pp. 23–56). Heidelberg: Springer.
BGW. (2019). IP management in distributed ledger technology and in food technology. St. Gallen: BGW.
Boehm, B. W. (1976). Software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-25(12), 1226–1241.
Bonakdar, A., Frankenberger, K., Bader, M. A., & Gassmann, O. (2017). Capturing value from business models: The role of formal and informal protection strategies. International Journal of Technology Management, 73(4), 151–175.
Chen, F. (2019). The investors’ view. In WIPO (2019) WIPO technology trends 2019: Artificial intelligence. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization, p. 105.
Chen, H., Roco, M. C., Li, X., & Lin, Y. (2008). Trends in nanotechnology patents. Nature Nanotechnology, 3(3), 123–125.
Clark, B., & Burstall, R. (2018). Blockchain, IP and the pharma industry—how distributed ledger technologies can help secure the pharma supply chain. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 13(7), 531–533.
Cohen, J. (2017). The birth of CRISPR. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, License Number 4803211490911. Science, 355(6326), 680–684. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.355.6326.680.
Coriat, B., & Orsi, F. (2002). Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States: Origins, content and problems. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1491–1507.
Dutfield, G. (2003). Intellectual property rights and the life science industries. A twentieth century history. Hampshire: Ashgate.
EPO. (2007). Scenarios for the future. How might IP regimes evolve by 2025? What global legitimacy might such regimes have? Munich: European Patent Office.
EPO. (2013). Nanotechnology and patents. Munich: European Patent Office.
EPO. (2017a). Biotechnology patents at the EPO. Munich: European Patent Office. https://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/biotechnology-patents.html.
EPO. (2017b). Patents and the fourth industrial revolution. The inventions behind digital transformation. Munich: European Patent Office.
EPO. (2018a). Patenting artificial intelligence. Conference summary. Munich: European Patent Office.
EPO. (2018b). Guidelines for examination: Artificial intelligence and machine learning (G-II 3.3.1). Munich: European Patent Office.
EPO. (2019). Patents for software? European law and practice. Munich: European Patent Office. Accessed December 28, 2019, from https://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/ict/hardware-and-software.html#tab1
EPO. (2020). Patent Index 2019. In Statistics at a glance. Munich: European Patent Office.
EPO and CNIPA. (2019). Comparative study on computer implemented inventions/software related inventions – Report 2019 I EPO and CNIPA. Munich: European Patent Office. Accessed December 28, 2019, from http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/979CF38758D25C2CC12584AC004618D9/$File/comparative_study_on_computer_implemented_inventions_software_related_inventions_EPO_CNIPA_en.pdf
EPO and JPO. (2018). Comparative study on computer implemented inventions/software related inventions – Report 2018 I EPO and JPO. Munich: European Patent Office. Accessed December 28, 2019, from http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/346e6018b0445380c12583cb002fdb34/$FILE/comparative_study_on_computer_implemented_inventions_software_related_inventions_EPO_JPO_en.pdf
EUIPO. (2018). 2017 situation report on counterfeiting and piracy in the European Union. Alicante: European observatory on infringements of intellectual property rights. from https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/observatory-publications.
European Commission. (2018). Artificial intelligence: European strategy. Brussels: European Commission. Accessed March 1, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/23112018-artificial_intelligence-huet_en.pdf
Flaim, J. G., & Chae, Y. (2019). Subject-matter eligibility in the United States, Europe, Japan, China and Korea. In: WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence, p. 96. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.
Gassmann, O., & Bader, M. A. (2017). Patentmanagement: Innovationen erfolgreich nutzen und schützen (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer.
Grosz, B. J., & Stone, P. (2018). A century long commitment to assessing artificial intelligence and its impact on society. December 2018. Communications of the ACM (CACM).
Hall, B. H., & MacGarvie, M. (2010). The private value of software patents. Research Policy, 39(7), 994–1009.
Huebner, S. R. (2008). The validity of European nanotechnology patents in Germany. Nanotechnology Law and Business, 5(3), 353–357.
IPStudies. (2019). CRISPR patent landscape. In Les Paccots. https://www.ipstudies.ch/.
Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., Hauer, M., Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2012). A programmable dual-RNA−guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 337(6096), 816–821.
Kallinger, C., Veefkind, V., Michalitsch, R., Verbandt, Y., Neumann, A., Scheu, M., & Forster, W. (2008). Patenting nanotechnology: A European patent office perspective. Nanotechnology Law and Business, 5(1), 95.
Ledford, H. (2019). Bitter fight over CRISPR patent heats up: Unusual battle among academic institutions holds key to gene-editing tool’s future use. Nature, 529(7586), 265. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine, Accessed December 26, 2019.
MGI (McKinsey Global Institute). (2015). The internet of things: Mapping the value beyond the Hype.
Miller, C., Serrato, R. M., Repressas-Cardenas, J. M., & Griffith, A. K. (2005). The handbook of nanotechnology: Business, policy, and intellectual property law. Hoboken: Wiley.
Nanosys. (2009). Nanoco Settles Patent Infringement Lawsuit with Nanosys, Inc. for Quantum Dot Technology. Manchester: Nanosys. http://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/press-releases/nanoco-settles-patent-infringement-lawsuit-nanosys-inc-quantum-dot-technology
OECD. (2003). Genetic inventions, iprs and licensing practices: Evidence and policies. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2009). Nanotechnology: An overview. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2017). Key issues for digital transformation in the G20. Report prepared for a joint G20 German Presidency/OECD conference. Paris: OECD.
Ouellette, L. L. (2015). Nanotechnology and innovation policy. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 29(1), Fall.
Sacem. (2019) Ascap, Sacem, and PRS for Music Initiate Blockchain Project to Improve Data Accuracy for Rightsholders, press release dated 2019-03-12.
Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution, 1st edition, New York Crowne Business (2017). Originally published by World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland 2016.
ScienceMag. (2017). How the battle lines over CRISPR were drawn. Accessed December 27, 2019, from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-battlelines-over-crispr-were-drawn
Sherkow, J. S. (2015). Law, history and lessons in the CRISPR patent conflict. Nature Biotechnology, 33, 256–257.
Smalley, L. W. (2014). Will nanotechnology products be impacted by the federal courts’ ‘Product of nature’ exception to subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101? Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 397.
Šrámek, P. (2019). Al startups in Europe. In: WIPO technology trends 2019: Artificial intelligence, p. 108. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.
Stellbrink. (2016). Life after Alice. Stellbrink & Partner on Twitter: Accessed on December 28, 2019, from https://twitter.com/sp_patent/status/742705881851252737
Stiftung Science et Cité. (2004). Streitfall biotechpatente. Bern: Stiftung Science et Cité.
Stone, P., Brooks, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Calo, R., Etzioni, O., Hager, G., Hirschberg, J., Kalyanakrishnan, S., Kamar, E., Kraus, S., Leyton-Brown, K., Parkes, D., Press, W., Saxenian, A. L., Shah, J., Tambe, M., & Teller, A. (2016). ‘Artificial intelligence and life in 2030.’ One hundred year study on artificial intelligence: Report of the 2015-2016 study panel. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, September 2016. Accessed September 6, 2016, from http://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report
Straus, J. (2003). An updating concerning the protection of biotechnological inventions including the scope of patents for genes. Munich: Special edition of the Official Journal of the European Patent Office on Gene Patenting.
Thumm, N. (2001). Management of intellectual property rights in European biotechnology firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 67, 259–272.
Thumm, N. (2003). Research and patenting in biotechnology − A survey in Switzerland. Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property: Bern.
USPTO. (2019). 2019 Revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance. Alexandria, VA: United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Wang, B., Vuković, L., & Král, P. (2008). Nanoscale rotary motors driven by electron tunneling. Physical Review Letters, 101, 186808.
WIPO. (2019). WIPO technology trends 2019: Artificial intelligence. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization. (The user is allowed to reproduce, distribute, adapt, translate and publicly perform this publication, including for commercial purposes, without explicit permission, provided that the content is accompanied by an acknowledgement that WIPO is the source and that it is clearly indicated if changes were made to the original content.)
Yaga, D., Mell, P., Roby, N., & Scarfoneet, K. (2018). Blockchain technology overview. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8202
Yanisky-Ravid, S., & Kim, E. (May 2019). Patenting blockchain: Mitigating the patent infringement war, Albany Law Review.
Youtie, J., Porter, A., Shapira, P., & Newman, N. (2016). Lessons from ten years of nanotechnology bibliometric analysis. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/sti/080%20-%20Blue%20Sky%20STIP%20final%20submission.pdf.
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gassmann, O., Bader, M.A., Thompson, M.J. (2021). Patent Management in New Technology Environments. In: Patent Management. Management for Professionals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59009-3_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59008-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59009-3