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