Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What is going on in the IP market?
February 2014
Robert Watson
President, FICPI-UK
Overview • The Global Position
• Robert Watson, Mewburn Ellis LLP
• The Canadian View • Louis-Pierre Gravelle, ROBIC
• The European (& UK) View • Me again!
• The US View • Barry Graham, Finnegan
THE GLOBAL POSITION
Growth in 2012 • Patent filings grew by 9.2 percent
• the fastest growth over the past 18 years
• Industrial design filings grew by 17 percent • the fastest growth on record
• Trademark class counts grew by 6.0 percent • Below the 2010 and 2011 growth rates.
One more set of stats …
One more set of stats …
One more set of stats …
A CANADIAN
PERSPECTIVE
Filings in Canada Louis-Pierre Gravelle March 1, 2014
Patent Filings
05000
1000015000200002500030000350004000045000
TotalCanadian applicants
15
Top 10 patent Applicants – 2013 Research in Motion Limited 782
General Electric Company 290
The Procter & Gamble Company 253
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG 212
BASF SE 195
The Boeing Company 189
Schlumberger Canada Limited 176
Nestec S.A. 162
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. 154
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH 147
16
Top 10 patent Applicants – 2012 Research in Motion Limited 827
General Electric Company 409
Procter & Gamble Co. 266
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft 224
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG 220
Tyco Healthcare Group LP 214
BASF SE 183
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH 165
Microsoft Corporation 164
Schlumberger Canada Limited 151
Top 10 patent Applicants – 2011 Research in Motion Limited 569
Qualcomm Incorporated 509
General Electric Company 337
Tyco Healthcare Group LP 256
The Procter & Gamble Company 218
Schlumberger Canada Limited 207
Basf SE 204
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG 199
Novartis AG 183
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH 146
Trade-marks
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
TotalCanadian applicants
Top 10 TM Applicants – 2013 The Procter & Gamble Company 265
L’Oreal, Société anonyme 246
Novartis AG 157
Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. 156
Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited 121
Société des produits Nestlé S.A. 106
Glaxo Group Limited 105
Johnson & Johnson 97
Bath & Body Works Brand Management, Inc. 92
Target Brands, Inc. 76
Top 10 TM Applicants – 2012 Johnson & Johnson 232
The Procter & Gamble Company 229
Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. 174
L'Oréal, Société Anonyme 154
Target Brands, Inc. 134
Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited 101
Glaxo Group Limited 100
LG Electronics Inc. 88
Nissan Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (Also Trading As Nissan...) 86
Spin Master Ltd. 83
Top 10 TM Applicants - 2011 Johnson & Johnson 268
LG Electronics Inc. 167
The Procter & Gamble Company 149
Novartis AG 139
L'Oréal, Société Anonyme 117
Unilever Canada Inc. 90
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. 83
Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. 83
Glaxo Group Limited 79
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. 73
Industrial Designs
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
TotalCanadian applicants
Top 10 ID Applicants – 2013 Microsoft Corporation 210
Nike International, Ltd 141
Research in Motion Limited 130
Masco Corporation of Indiana 123
Target Brands, Inc. 123
BSH Home Appliances Corporation 93
Apple Inc. 76
Honda Motor CO. Ltd. 63
The Procter & Gamble Company 62
Philips Electronics Ltd. 61
Top 10 ID Applicants – 2012 Microsoft Corporation 245
The Proctor & Gamble Company 189
Nike International LTD 123
Kohler CO. 114
Philips Electronics LTD 105
Research in Motion Limited 92
Honda Motor CO. LTD 72
Target Brands, INC. 70
Colgate-Palmolive Company 60
Lego A/S 39
Top 10 ID Applicants – 2011 The Procter & Gamble Company 253
Microsoft Corporation 158
Philips Electronics LTD. 106
Nike International, LTD. 60
Research in Motion Limited 55
Spin Master LTD. 54
Colgate-Palmolive Company 52
Honda Motor CO., LTD. 48
Victaulic Company 41
LG Electronics INC. 40
Observations • Filings are generally coming back up • Proportion of Canadian applicants is rising,
but very slowly • Top 10 shows a mixture of tech, pharma and
health care • Tech darlings in Canada seem cursed…
Domestic market realities • Structural aspects
– Mostly natural resources economy – Service based economy – Govts pay lip service to innovation – Lower competitivity compared to other
countries • 14th on competitivity but 21st on innovation!
– Delay in adopting new technologies, and low innovation culture
Domestic market realities • Cultural aspects
– Culture of entrepreneurship is not fully developped
– Poor understanding of the value of IP and of the necessity of protecting it
– The three « Bs » of the Québec (Canadian?) entrepreneur:
• BMW; boat; beach house
Domestic market realities • Cultural aspects
– Negative connotation to the word « entrepreneur »
– Lower per capita investment in IT and high tech
– Language?
Robert Gagné, Centre sur la productiv ité et la prospérité, HEC
…but is it all bad? • Mature, sophisticated market • Efficient IP office
– Backlog is important, but there are ways to accelerate (PPH, Green Tech)
– Quality search and examination • Efficient court system
– Trial before judge – Federal court not « specialized » but very
knowledgeable
…but is it all bad? • European free trade agreement • Ratification of major treaties • the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning
the International Registration of Marks (“Madrid”), • the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks
(“Singapore”), • the Nice Agreement Concerning the International
Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (“Nice”),
• the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (“Hague”),
• the Patent Law Treaty (“PLT”).
…but is it all bad? • Industry Canada seems to be paying
attention, as they have been holding round table discussions on the concerns of IP players in Canada – no concrete proposals as of yet
• The Québec gov. has announced a $2B research and innovation program, including a « first patent » component
Conclusion • Some growth • Mature market • Infringement test cases in Canada?
Contact Information Louis-Pierre Gravelle [email protected] +1 (514) 987-8876 http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/louis-pierre-gravelle/0/a91/3b6/ @LPGravelle ROBIC LLP Montreal 1001, Square-Victoria – Bloc E – 8th floor Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec 2828, Laurier Boulevard, Tower 1, suite 925 Quebec (Quebec) Canada G1V 0B9 http://www.linkedin.com/company/robic https://twitter.com/robiccanada https://www.facebook.com/ROBICCanada?sk=info
36
AN EPO
PERSPECTIVE
EP Attorneys - 1999
DE, 2190
GB, 1377
FR, 576
IT, 287
CH, 284
NL, 264 SE, 249 ES, 164
FI, 155 DK, 112 BE, 109
AT, 84
PT, 50
GR, 39
IE, 32
CY, 28
LU, 13
LI, 9
MC, 3
Other, 174
DE 36%
GB 23%
FR 10%
IT 5%
CH 5% NL
4%
SE 4% ES
3% FI 3%
DK 2%
BE 2% AT
1%
PT 1%
GR 1%
IE 1%
CY 0%
LU 0%
LI 0%
MC 0%
Other 3%
EP Attorneys - 1999
EP Attorneys - 2007
DE, 2844
GB, 1704
FR, 767
PL, 450
CH, 388
NL, 355
IT, 335 SE, 282
DK, 163 ES, 161
FI, 152 BE, 148 CZ, 122 HU, 122
TR, 116 AT, 103 RO, 88
BG, 86 PT, 46
SK, 45 LT, 44
IE, 43
SI, 33
GR, 32
EE, 30
IS, 26 LV, 23
LU, 15
CY, 13
LI, 9
MC, 2
Other, 270
EP Attorneys - 2007
DE 33%
GB 19%
FR 9%
PL 5%
CH 4%
NL 4%
IT 4%
SE 3%
DK 2% ES 2%
FI 2%
BE 2%
CZ 1%
HU 1% TR
1%
AT 1%
RO 1%
BG 1%
PT 1%
SK 1%
LT 1%
IE 0%
SI 0%
GR 0%
EE 0%
IS 0% LV
0%
LU 0%
CY 0%
LI 0%
MC 0%
Other 3%
EP Attorneys - 2013
DE, 3918
GB, 2071
FR, 1016
CH, 504
IT, 495
NL, 481
SE, 376 PL, 309
DK, 247 BE, 205
ES, 189
FI, 181
AT, 130
NO, 99
CZ, 95
TR, 91
HU, 79 IE, 71
BG, 65 RO, 56 RS, 53
PT, 41 SK, 34
SI, 30 EE, 26
HR, 26
LT, 26 MK, 26
GR, 24
SM, 23
IS, 22
LI, 22
LV, 21 LU, 20
AL, 19
CY, 12 MT, 5
MC, 4 Other, 250
EP Attorneys - 2013
DE 35%
GB 19%
FR 9%
CH 5%
IT 4%
NL 4% SE
3%
PL 3%
DK 2% BE 2%
ES 2%
FI 2%
AT 1%
NO 1%
CZ 1%
TR 1%
HU 1%
IE 1%
BG 1%
RO 1% RS
0% PT 0%
SK 0% SI
0% EE 0%
HR 0%
LT 0% MK
0%
GR 0%
SM 0%
IS 0%
LI 0%
LV 0% LU
0% AL 0%
CY 0% MT 0%
MC 0% Other
2%
EP Attorneys vs. EP filings
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
Total EP filings
EP Attornys
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
Total EP filings
EP Attornys
EP Attorneys vs. EP filings
Growth in European applications
How do key EU states compare?
How do key EU states compare?
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
DE FR GB CH NL IT SE FI AT BE ES
How do key EU states compare?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
DE FR GB CH NL IT SE FI AT BE ES
How do key EU states compare?
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
DE FR GB IT CH NL SE FI ES PL AT
Foreign-orientatedDomestic
Is technology changing?
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Electrical engineeringInstrumentsChemistryMechanical engineeringOther fields
Is technology changing?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Electrical engineeringInstrumentsChemistryMechanical engineeringOther fields
How does it vary by country?
30%
13% 25%
24%
8%
France
17%
15%
24%
35%
9%
Germany
21%
18%
28%
22%
11%
United Kingdom
Electrical engineering InstrumentsChemistry Mechanical engineeringOther fields
How does it vary by country?
21%
14%
17% 4%
5%
11%
5%
5%
0% 12%
6%
United Kingdom
rganic fine chemistry Biotechnology Pharmaceuticals
acromolecular chemistry, polymers Food chemistry Basic materials chemistry
aterials, metallurgy Surface technology, coating Micro-structural and nano-technology
hemical engineering Environmental technology
20%
16%
15% 6% 3%
8%
9%
5%
1% 9%
8%
France
18%
11%
8%
12%
2%
13%
8%
8%
0% 13%
7%
Germany
A (BRIEF) UK
PERSPECTIVE
UKIPO Annual Targets – 2012/13
UK Applications over 7 years
A US
PERSPECTIVE
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP What Is Going On In The
IP Market? – A U.S. Perspective
FICPI ABC 2014 Conference, Session 5 March 1, 2014
Barry W. Graham President, FICPI U.S. Section
61 61
In a Nutshell
• Upside: – Significance of IP rights strong as ever – IP Rights filings, monetization, and enforcement are up – America Invents Act – NPEs/PAEs – U.S. Supreme Court decisions
• Downside: – Competition is fierce and companies’ IP budgets are
tight • What do you need to compete?
62 62
If You Want Charts
• IP statistics abound everywhere! – For charts, dashboards, tables, and just about every
conceivable statistic, go to: • www.uspto.gov/patents/stats • www.uspto.gov/dashboards/trademarks • AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2013 (available to AIPLA
members at www.aipla.org) • www.wipo.int/ipstats/ • IPO 2013 IP Record (available to IPO members at www.ipo.org)
63 63
Filings
• Patent Applications and grants – – Utility – up with continued 50-50 split for U.S. and
foreign origin – Design – up – Plant – flat – Reissue grants – down
64 64
Filings (cont’d)
• Major technologies/share (1998 – 2012) – – Computer technology 10.56% – Medical technology 7.79 – Pharmaceuticals 6.20 – Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy 4.28 – Digital communication 4.24 – Organic fine chemistry 4.18 – Biotechnology 3.99 – Measurement 3.96 – Telecommunications 3.73 – Semiconductors 3.45 – Others 47.62
• Top Filers – – IBM, Samsung, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, and Microsoft
65 65
Filings (cont’d)
• Trademark Applications and Registrations – TM applications and registrations – up
66 66
A New Field Rapidly Evolving
• AIA’s Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method Post-Grant Reviews (CMB) – Potent tools for those challenged by patent assertions – Vast majority of USPTO filings are IPRs – Technical areas –
• Electrical/computers – 70% • Mechanical – 14% • Chemical – 9% • Bio/pharm – 6% • Design – 1%
For more on AIA activity, go to www.aiablog.com (full disclosure: hosted by Finnegan)
67 67
Litigation
• District Court – patent cases up; TM cases down • USITC – down • Court of Federal Claims – down • NPEs/PAEs – still extremely active • Smartphone wars – continue, U.S. and globally
68 68
Work Generators
• Generators of IP work in the U.S. – The significance of IP rights to businesses continues to
grow; thus, more IP right acquisitions, more assertions, stronger attacks against assertions
– The AIA – Additional legislation in the works – A very active U.S. Supreme Court
69 69
It Is There, so How Do You Get More Of It?
• There is plenty of business for the IP profession in the U.S.
• What do you need to do to maintain what you have and grow it?
• A dialogue is called for here. So please join in! • Finnegan’s business model works for us, but it
may not be suitable for you. • What is your business model? Do you need to
tweak it? If so, how can you improve it?
70 70
It Is There So How Do You Get More Of It? (cont’d)
• Top talent; • Marketing, marketing, marketing; • Client visits; • Creative fee arrangements; • Sufficient support for the professionals • Look to the future –
– Grow in size? – More offices and if so, where? – Whom and what to target? – What else?
71 71
The Fine Print
• Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the author and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, the author and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner, L.L.P. cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with the author or Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner, L.L.P. While every attempt was made to ensure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed.
72 72
Thank you
THANK YOU
Barry W. Graham
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 901 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-4413 USA Phone (direct): 202-408-4017
Fax: 202-408-4400 Email: [email protected]
www.finnegan.com
Atlanta Boston Brussels London Palo Alto Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Washington
