Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCameron Homer May Modified over 8 years ago
1
ROR Subcommittee 05-3 Aggressive IP Strategies Stewart WitzemanEastman Chemical Paul GermeraadIntellectual Assets John TaoAir Products
2
ROR 05-3 May 2005 Meeting Overview: ROR Subcommittee 05-3 Aggressive IP Strategies Objective/Scope To study in detail aggressive IP filing behavior in a way that identifies and then interviews leading companies so that their integrated business, R&D and IP strategies are shared with the committee Dates Start- 2/2005 Planned Finish 5/2006 Key Deliverable(s) A ROR sub-committee compilation on company strategies and methods associated with Aggressive IP Behavior Round Table Meetings to collect and understand “best”-practices A SIS on Aggressive IP Behavior An article in RTM on Aggressive IP Behavior Value Proposition To improve revenue and profits by developing new products and services protected from competitive market share erosion or licensing payments
3
ROR 05-3 May 2005 Meeting Example Of An Proactive IP Strategy
4
ROR 05-3 May 2005 Meeting Picture Of An Industry Segment
5
ROR 05-3 May 2005 Meeting Major Findings, Discussion Points, or WIP ROR Subcommittee 05-3 Aggressive IP Strategies Most recent work products (Today’s Work) Plan and process by which to conduct work Added Round-Table concept Work-In-Process items: Round-Tables Brainstormed companies, selected selection committee “Blue Slip” – IP/Company “Companies we should consider” Brainstormed Round-Table “Questions to Panel Members” “Blue Slip” – IP/Questions “Questions we should consider” Selected committee to select and refine Questions Selected title of Round-Table sessions: “Competitive IP strategies for 21st Century”
6
ROR 05-3 May 2005 Meeting Major Findings, Discussion Points, or WIP ROR Subcommittee 05-3 Aggressive IP Strategies Discussion Points Companies: IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Lucent, Dow, DuPont, GE, P&G, Philip Morris, STM, Phillips, Samsung, Toyota, 3M, Boeing, Genentech, Pfizer, GSK, Rambus, Cisco, Nanogram, Touchstone, Ceramitec, MIT, Baylor, Alcoa Questions: Why do you have an aggressive IP strategy? Was aggressive IP strategy a grand design or a result of just working in a rich area? Did you stumble into this aggressive IP strategy or was it deliberate? How are you implementing an aggressive IP strategy? Who is involved? What is the structure you use to carry the aggressive IP strategy out? How does aggressive IP strategy change the way you do business? Correlation between patent strategy and country What is the filing strategy? E.g. Use of computer generated claims, small groups, etc. What is impact of “Trolls” What are the options for fighting an aggressive IP company? What is the value of the aggressive IP strategy? How much did an aggressive IP strategy help? How does aggressive IP strategy link to limited R&D resources and resource allocation decisions? “Blue Slip” – IP/Company “Companies we should consider” “Blue Slip” – IP/Questions “Questions we should consider”
7
ROR 05-3 May 2005 Meeting Forward Plan ROR Subcommittee 05-3 Aggressive IP Strategies Next Deliverables Summer Round Tables Relevant to IRI members Five on each panel, cross-section by: Industry, global, Univ./Company, big/small Plan for two roundtables Learn from these if we need more SIS sessions RTM article What do you need from the ROR Committee? Blue Slips Join if you are interested
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.