Patent law today is a complex institution in most developed

This paper examines intellectual property (IP) management in U.S. companies and addresses three questions: What are typical sources of IP? How do companies manage IP? What role do donations of IP play in IP management?We used a combination of in-depth interviews with a sample of 15 companies in Northeast Ohio and an on-line survey to over 7,200 companies nationally. We found that firms develop their IP position from a wide variety of sources such as joint ventures, acquisitions, and consulting contracts. However, internal development is still the primary source of IP. Internal patenting processes follow two general paths, one relying on some type of IP committee and another that simply empowers divisional line managers to make patenting decisions.Organizationally, three structural archetypes of IP management were identified, each with its unique advantages and drawbacks: a centralized structure, a purely decentralized IP structure and a compromise structure involving a divisional assignment where a multi-business unit or division committee oversees IP.Concerning IP donations, the response rate to our on-line survey was too low for us to draw definitive conclusions. IP donations clearly do not appear to be a major phenomenon at the present time. Our survey results suggest that tax benefits are an important driver and that recent tax law changes have diminished the incentives to donate IP. Potential good will benefits constitute another motive. The uncertainty of tax benefits and the costs associated with IP valuation appear to be the main disincentives. The low survey response rate may be attributable to the timing of the survey (fall, 2004, while federal legislation was pending), a lack of interest in IP donations, and the generally low response rates to on-line surveys.

Patent law today is a complex institution in most developed

DOE prevents competitors from making "unimportant and insubstantial changes and substitutions in the patent which, though adding nothing, would be enough to take the copied matter outside the claim, and hence outside the reach of law") (citing Graver Tank). 11. See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 34-35 (1995) (implying that the DOE was utilitarian, and rejecting the notion that the doctrine was purely equitable). The preamble to the intellectual property clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, "To promote the progress of the. .. useful Arts," is expressed in utilitarian terms and has been interpreted as such during the twentieth century.

No abstract