Law and Innovation

A fter almost half a century of striving for unified patent protection throughout the European Union, one of the biggest single markets on the planet, the creation of a single EU patent system is within reach and should be a reality in 201 7 . However, the Unified Patent Court system still needs to be completed  [1] . With less than a week to go before October 1 , 2013 (deadline for the public, i.e. international companies, to submit their suggestions on the Unified Patent Court's Rules of Procedure  [2] )  things are getting a little more interesting. On Wednesday September 25, 2013 a group of 14 global innovators and users of the European patent system (among others, Google, Microsoft, HP, Intel, Yahoo, Apple, Samsung, and also non-IT companies such as Adidas and DHL), has sent an open letter   [4] to European Officials and decision-makers outlining their concerns about the coming change of this new Unified Patent Court. As innovators, these tech com...

Last Monday, on August 26, 2013, the Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola Mobility (a wholly-owned Google subsidiary) breach-of-FRAND-contract trial kicked off in Seattle  [1] . It’s already the second trial in this case; a first trial took place in November 2010  [2] . The  federal jury in Seattle has already rendered a verdict on this case,  and Microsoft has won again.  Even though a case between two giants is always exciting, this article will just deal with the meanings of technical legal terms surrounding this case, such as standards-essential patent (SEP), Standard-Developing Organizations   (SDO) and FRAND/RAND terms  [3] ; terms which also have significant interest and impact in the smartphone patent wars. As we all know, the economic role of intellectual property rights , more precisely patents, is very significant. The patent system promotes innovation and economic growth by providing incentives to inventors to apply their knowledg...