IP SOLUTIONS BLOG

According to the Wall Street Journal’s Digits, Twitter has announced a new legal approach that aims to give employees more control over how the company uses patents derived from their work. Called the “Innovator’s Patent Agreement,” the agreement gives Twitter employees a chance to block Twitter from suing rival companies using patents secured under their names. Additionally, employees would continue to have a say in their patents’ use in litigation, even if Twitter were to sell the patents.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Laura Gaze,  Senior Marketing Manager, IP Solutions: While it remains to be seen what kind of impact this agreement will ultimately have, it’s hard to deny it encourages innovation at all levels. By giving individual employees “skin in the game” on patent enforcement, Twitter has made it clear that individual innovation will be rewarded.  Or, as Twitter’s vice president of engineering aptly put it: “Employees can be assured that their patents will be used only as a shield, rather than as a weapon.

Ultimately, one could infer that this action provides Twitter with a competitive advantage. The company has attached an inherent feeling of ownership to their employees’ work.  This is uncommon in the tech industry, where employees typically cede their patent rights to their companies.  If employees feel more inclined to innovate, it puts a tech company like Twitter in a very advantageous position. Discontent may be the spark towards progress, but motivation is the life blood that fuels the process. And a workforce who feels confident their patents won’t be taken advantage of is bound to have plenty of motivation.

Laura Gaze, Senior Marketing Manager, IP Solutions Patents Innovation, Patents, Protection, Twitter

David Pendlebury, Analyst, IP Solutions: Wall Street Journal science reporter Gautam Naik recently highlighted the rapid rise in the publication of journal articles that report results from observational studies, largely in clinical medicine (May 3, A1 and A12).

“In an observational study there is no human intervention. Researchers simply observe what is happening during the course of events, or they analyze previously gathered data and draw conclusions. In an experimental study, such as a drug trial, investigators prompt some sort of change—by giving a drug to half the participants, say—and then make inferences.”

Naik pointed out the lower cost of observational studies as compared to randomized controlled trials, and the increasing ease with which observational studies can be pursued, thanks to expanding databases, more computing resources, and improved statistical software designed for such analyses. The result?

“Nearly 80,000 observational studies were published in the period 1990-2000 across all scientific fields, according to an analysis performed for The Wall Street Journal by Thomson Reuters. In the following period, 2001-2011, the number of studies more than tripled to 263,557, based on a search of Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide. The analysis likely doesn’t capture every observational study in the literature, but it does indicate a pattern of growth over time.”

To put these figures in context, in the first period Thomson Reuters indexed 14.7 million articles across all fields of science and in the second period some 22.2 million: that’s an increase of 51%. Observational studies, as Naik noted, increased more than threefold at the same time. Does this reflect scientific progress or research fad?

“But observational studies, researchers say, are especially prone to methodological and statistical biases that can render the results unreliable. Their findings are much less replicable than those drawn from controlled research. Worse, few of the flawed findings are spotted—or corrected—in the published literature.”

Indeed, this was main theme of the story – that such studies may be suspect, and Naik cited authorities claiming that the results of observational studies can be replicated only 20% of the time or less. So, are observational studies good or bad?

A researcher’s choice of subject or technique takes place in a social – not a sterile – context. That choice is often influenced by newly available data and tools. But it may also be driven by social forces and incentives, what others are doing and what type of research is getting funded. Individual observational studies may, of course, be well designed and conclusions from them carefully presented, but Naik and the sources he quoted invite concern about the proliferation of these publications.

“Fad” is a loaded word and implies shallowness or something worse. There is clearly a spectrum of research activity that runs from fashion to real substance. It is for experts and the self-correcting nature of the scientific process to determine eventually what observational studies can contribute to progress in clinical medicine and other fields. However, as Naik’s article illustrates, scientometric analysis, which turns the quantitative tools of science on science itself, can help research managers and funders monitor, assess, and judge current trends in research activity.

admin Innovation Clinical medicine, Pharma, Research

Trademark professionals and brand managers understand the importance of starting a new brand on the right foot, whether it’s an entire company or a product line within. Making sure that your trademark hasn’t already been registered by someone else is of vital importance in this process, but with an entire world to consider, it’s no simple task.

The latest news from Thomson CompuMark aims to make the process of screening your marks easier and more effective than ever.

Over the past few months and over the coming few months, Thomson CompuMark is more than tripling the number of our trademark screening registers. This summer, the number of registers covered by Thomson CompuMark will reach an impressive 186, making it the largest collection of trademark screening information available anywhere.

The upcoming expanded coverage will include markets unavailable from any other online source. We’ve started that process by releasing 40 new databases this week, including strategically important countries like Taiwan, Kosovo and Malaysia.

Not only will you have the most complete coverage of trademark registers, but you can screen your mark in multiple countries with a single search, thanks to SAEGIS® on SERION®.

Find out more about this expansion of coverage, and stay tuned for more SAEGIS databases coming in the weeks ahead.

admin Trademarks brands, SAEGIS, Trademark Screening, Trademarks

Laura Gaze, Senior Marketing Manager, IP Solutions: For research and development leaders in the pharmaceutical field, delivering the right information at the point of need so users can make informed decisions more quickly is vital to the process. Today, that becomes a little easier. That’s because we’re announcing the launch of our Partner Ecosystem, a new initiative aimed at enabling access to the company’s life sciences information through application-specific solutions developed with third-party partners.

Through the Partner Ecosystem, third party developers can take advantage of the Thomson Reuters Cortellis open architecture to access the company’s content and technology. This creates value-add custom solutions that allows pharmaceutical leaders to meet the needs of their customers.  These solutions can include Thomson Reuters market leading ontologies, biological target information and other critical information that supports pharmaceutical business development and competitive intelligence projects.

The flexible approach to information delivery enables companies to integrate Thomson Reuters trusted drug pipeline data seamlessly into a user’s workflow. In addition, partners gain access to the Cortellis Developer Center, a forum where client and third party developers collaborate to share ideas, best practices, and discuss new applications as well as obtain technical support from Thomson Reuters technology and content experts.

The Partner Ecosystem web site can be found at http://cortellis.thomsonreuters.com/partners/.

To become a partner, or for any questions, please send an email to Life.Sciences.Partners@thomsonreuters.com, or connect with Thomson Reuters today at Bio-IT World Conference & Expo in Boston, Massachusetts, at booth 236.

Laura Gaze, Senior Marketing Manager, IP Solutions Life Sciences Life Sciences, Partner Ecosystem, Pharma, Research and Development

According to the New York Times, a court in Hamburg on Friday ordered Google to install filters on its YouTube service in Germany to detect and stop people from gaining access to material for which they do not own the rights.

In the wake of the finding, Google also said it would return to the negotiating table to resume talks on royalty payments. Copyrighted material controlled by GEMA (the German association that hands out and collects royalties on recorded media) have been kept off YouTube since 2009, when the previous agreement expired. GEMA sued Google over 12 illegally uploaded videos in 2010.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Laura Gaze, Senior Marketing Manager, IP Solutions: In the uphill battle against piracy, this is a win for the music industry. While there is still plenty to work out regarding revenue sharing, the music industry gets a little insulation from copyright infringement, while shifting the onus on regulation to the channels. As Google rushes to find a filtering technology that will live up to the parameters of the ruling, it will be very interesting to see how that may influence the scope of content sharing. In the US, the music industry is handcuffed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but the international scene is a completely different ball game. If upheld, the ruling in Germany could set an interesting precedent both in the country and worldwide.

Laura Gaze, Senior Marketing Manager, IP Solutions Trademarks Copyrights, Google, Infringement, Music, Piracy, YouTube

According to the Los Angeles Times, California is taking a lead in the race for green technology. The report cites the 2012 California Green Innovation Index, which found that investments in green tech companies based in California rose to 3.5 billion between 2010 and 2011: a 24% hike.

California also leads in clean tech patent registrations, filing 910 between 2008 and 2010. That number reflects 41% of all solar patents and 21% of all battery patents filed nationwide.
________________________________________________________________________

Laura Gaze, Senior Marketing Manager, IP Solutions: Innovate and you shall be rewarded! Thanks to the surge in green technology patents, California pulled in $1.2 billion of venture capital funding in 2011. That’s 62% of all venture capital funding invested in the U.S last year. Not only has California cut their carbon emissions by 28%, they may have found a way to sustain their state in a down economy.

Now, innovation is nothing new to the same state the houses Silicon Valley, but the precedent California is setting could potentially create a ripple effect throughout other states in the country. V.C. money follows strong patents, and California has proven that there is a windfall to be made in clean technology. That capital will not only go to finding new ways to power the nation, but should stimulate the local economies. When out-of-work employees start to find themselves back into a job thanks to new innovation, it’s possible other states could sit up and take notice. If that happens, it could aggressive accelerate the growth of the green tech industry.

Laura Gaze, Senior Marketing Manager, IP Solutions Patents Green Technology, Patents, Venture Capital

Writing on the op-ed page of the Financial Times this week, James Dyson, creator of the eponymous vacuum cleaner, takes a stand against non-practicing entities, copycat patents and incompatible international patenting systems in an impassioned plea for innovation.
____________________________________________________________________________

Bob Stembridge,  Customer Relations Manager, IP Solutions: Bravo!  James Dyson has been a tireless advocate of innovation well-beyond his ubiquitous television commercials.  By relating his own experiences, both as a start-up entrepreneur, and now, as the leader of a multinational firm that spends £1.5 million a week on R&D, Dyson captures the complexities of the current IP landscape.  He writes:

“An idea must hold its value across national boundaries. Navigating the hotchpotch of national IP systems is baffling. Wherever we trade and whoever we trade with, there needs to be a level playing field for national and international companies, with shared rules and a shared respect for ideas.

We need to recall the inspiration behind patents. They are a spur for invention. They reward an inventor’s investment with a fixed monopoly and in return they make their technology public. It has been that way since Henry VI awarded the first English ‘letters patent’ in 1449. Patents are a call to others to go one step further: to invent and improve.”

The sentiment echoes Dyson’s earlier comments on innovation, when he wrote in 2011 in Bloomberg Businessweek responding to our Patented in China special report:

“New ideas are essential because 21st century trade will not be defined by who makes what, but who makes things better.”

We couldn’t agree more.  Patents are the spur for innovation and a consistent, enforceable IP infrastructure is the key ingredient that allows that innovation to flourish.

Bob Stembridge, Customer Relations Manager, Thomson Reuters Patents Innovation, Patents

Bob Stembridge, Customer Relations Manager, IP Solutions: As we continue our deep dive into the key technology areas featured in our 2011 State of Innovation report, the Medical Devices sector stands out as a hot spot.  Medical Device patent volume grew by 12% from 2010 and 2011 – among the sharpest growth of all technology areas – with a total of 58,592 inventions in the last year alone.

Healthcare is in a transformational period, and the increase in patent volume activity in the Medical Device industry is a reflection of this transformation.  Medical Device patent filing experienced growth in all subsector areas, including Diagnosis & Surgery, Dentistry Bandages Prosthesis, Medical Aids and Oral Administration, and Sterilizing, Syringes, Electrotherapy. The most substantial increase was found in Medical Aids and Oral Administration, which grew by 17% year to year with 11,367 patents.

The industry’s greatest single source of new patent activity came from the category of Diagnosis & Surgery (34 percent), with 22,864 global patents in 2011, suggesting the global implications of aging Baby Boomers are beginning to be felt.  An increased life span, better detection for chronic diseases and the movement toward remote healthcare to reduce hospital stays could all have had a hand in driving patent activity.

Not surprisingly, international companies made their technological presence felt in this sector. In fact, Asian-based companies held the top three spots for Diagnosis & Surgery patent activity:  Toshiba led with 883 patents, followed by Fujifilm and Olympus Medical Systems. Other top Diagnosis & Surgery patent assignees in key world markets were Siemens (Europe) and Covidien (United States).

Bob Stembridge, Customer Relations Manager, Thomson Reuters Patents Innovation, Medical Device, Patents, State of Innovation

Bob Stembridge, Customer Relations Manager, IP Solutions: Still think hybrid vehicles are a novelty?  That your small-block V8 could never be replaced by a rechargeable battery cell?  Think again.  With a crude oil currently trading at over $123 per barrel, the auto industry has gotten very serious about making cars for a world beyond fossil fuels.

As we dive into the details of our 2011 State of Innovation report, one category jumps out for its continued growth: alternative powered vehicles.  The chart and table below shows that patents filed for alternative powered vehicles surged 20% in 2011, reaching a total of 19,078 for the year, more than any other category in the auto industry.

Who are the leaders in alternative power innovation?  As the tables below demonstrate, the top filer in Asia is Toyota; the top filer in Europe is Daimler and the top filer in the US is General Motors.

Bob Stembridge, Customer Relations Manager, Thomson Reuters Patents Automotive, Patents, State of Innovation

New York Jets quarterback Tim Tebow seems to attract attention anywhere he goes, from the media to throngs of fans to passionate detractors. But according to The Wall Street Journal, it’s a polyester and mesh blend with his name on the back that has athletic giant Nike suing its competitor Reebok.

Some background: Reebok has held an exclusive contract as the official supplier of NFL on-field uniforms and licensed fan apparel since 2002. Since the Jets acquired Tebow last week, Reebok has been burning through their Jets stock by selling Tim Tebow jerseys to thousands of fans in Tri-State area stores and on the team’s and league’s online stores. The problem with that? Nike, who paid a reported $1.1 billion to acquire the licensing rights for the next five years, says it’s infringing on their deal, due to the supposed fact that part of Reebok’s agreement with the NFL Players Association is they can no longer produce apparel after March 1^st.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Laura Gaze, Senior Marketing Manager, IP Solutions: This is a sticky situation, with no immediately clear solution. Even though the Journal’s report says that Reebok’s deal with the NFLPA expired on March 1^st, Nike’s deal with the league doesn’t kick in until this Sunday (April 1^st). As a result, it creates a dark period with a lot of uncertainty. To add support to Nike’s case, Reebok did not produce on-field jerseys for February’s Pro Bowl in Hawaii (The uniforms were unbranded and produced by MLB exclusive supplier Majestic.) Nor did they offer jerseys with the Super Bowl XLVI logo on them for the New York Giants or New England Patriots (NFL Shop produced special unbranded “Pro Line” jerseys to help fill the gap, supposedly because Reebok production had stopped). This weekend in New York stores, the t-shirts with the Jets official logo on the front and Tebow’s name and number 15 could be found, but there was no logo on them, with the exception of t-shirt maker Guildan on the tag.

Here’s the wrinkle, though. Reebok gear has been sold for the last two months at a steep (50-60%) discount, including custom jerseys, where fans are able to put any player on the current roster on the back of a Reebok jersey. Nike didn’t seem to have a problem with it, until the merchandising-selling machine called Tebowmania came to the nation’s largest market. Can Reebok get around this by claiming the jerseys were already “produced,” and that they were just allowing Jets fans to customize the jerseys from the current roster? Did Nike set a precedent without meaning to, by not objecting to Reebok sales since March 1? And could the third party retail outlets to blame, even though most sporting goods store manager are well-educated about the change over and many have boxes of Nike gear waiting to be unpacked and put on shelves this weekend? This could be a fascinating case to watch unfold.

Update, 1:51 PM: A New York judge has ruled to block the sale of Reebok-produced Tebow gear, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Laura Gaze, Senior Marketing Manager, IP Solutions 20, Trademarks Nike, Reebok, Trademarks