Win, lose or draw? The fate of patented inventions

Walsh, J.P.,Lee, Y.N.,Jung, T. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland) 2016 RESEARCH POLICY Vol.45 No.7

Using information from a survey of US inventors, this study explores the reasons for patent non-use and different types of non-use at the patent level, and how this varies by industry and firm characteristics. We find that 55% of triadic patents are commercialized. We also find that 17% of all triadic patents are not commercialized but are at least partially for preemption, though only 3% of all triadic patents are purely preemptive patents. We find that preemptive non-use is less common than failed patents. We then test the discriminating effects of patent effectiveness, competition, firm size and fragmentation of patent rights on the likelihood of preemptive patents. We find that greater patent effectiveness, more competition, and large firm size are associated with greater preemptive non-use relative to commercial use of patents. We conclude with the policy implications of our results.

Patent Troll에 대한 법적·제도적 대응방안 연구

김기영 서울대학교 기술과법센터 2008 Law & technology Vol.4 No.4

“Patent Troll”은 2000년대 초반 미국의 닷컴(dot-com) 기업의 몰락, 특허중시(pro-patent)정책, 소프트웨어 등 첨단산업기술의 발전과 관련 발명에 대한 특허출원의 급증 및 불완전한 특허심사제도 등을 배경으로 등장하였고, 미국과는 기술발전 속도, 특허제도 및 발명자의 보호에 있어 차이가 있는 우리나라에서도 그러한 현상의 발생가능성에 대한 우려가 높아지고 있다. “Patent Troll”은 그 개념에 포함되어야 할 행위 또는 행위자의 범위가 불명확하고, 원래 특허법에 정해진 권리를 행사하는 것이라는 점에서 그 규제 여부에 관하여 논란이 있으나, Patent Troll의 행위로 인하여 혁신의 촉진 등 특허제도의 목적 달성에 장애를 초래하는 행위유형이 존재할 수 있다는 점에서 이에 대한 대응방법을 마련할 필요가 있다. 그러한 대응방법의 하나로서 미국에서는 특허권 남용(Patent Misuse)의 법리가 들어지나 그러한 법리가 발전되지 않은 우리나라에서는 민법상의 권리남용의 법리를 적용할 수 있을 것이고, 특히 특허권자의 특허권침해금지청구에 대하여 권리남용의 법리를 적용함에 있어서는 금지명령으로 인하여 받을 침해자측의 불이익, 특허의 무효가능성, 특허권자의 특허발명 실시여부, 특허권의 행사로 인하여 일반 공중이 입게 될 불이익 등을 고려하여 판단해야 할 것이다. 또한 Patent Troll에 의한 특허권 침해로 인한 손해배상액을 산정함에 있어서는 특허권자가 스스로 발명을 실시하지 않는 점 및 특허가 침해품의 수요에 기여하는 비율 등을 참작하여야 할 것이다. 나아가 Patent Troll의 발생을 억지하기 위해서는 영업방법발명 등 새로운 유형의 발명에 대응할 수 있는 구체적인 특허심사기준을 마련하고 심사관의 역량을 강화하며, 특허침해 여부의 판단의 전제가 되는 청구범위의 해석과 관련하여 균등의 범위를 적정하게 설정하고, 패소한 당사자에 대하여 실질적으로 소요된 비용을 기초로 소송비용을 부담하게 하며, 심결취소소송과 침해소송의 관할이 분리되어 있는 현재의 이원적 소송구조는 Patent Troll에 의하여 악용될 소지가 있고 비효율적이므로 특허소송의 관할을 통합하여야 할 것이다. “Patent troll”is regarded as the good example of the misuse of patent rights. Even though patent trolls can play a positive role by providing poor individual inventors, small or medium sized companies with ammunition to fight against large corporation infringers, they force alleged infringers(manufactures) to pay large sums of royalties or damages making them lose incentives to improve technologies or produce goods, which would in turn reduce the number of goods supplied to consumers and lower the level of social welfare generally. So, counter-measures against patent trolls should be considered. One conceivable measure is to apply the doctrine of prohibition of misuse of rights (DPMR). This is plausible because patent rights have the attributes of property rights and property rights can not be misused contrary to their purposes. In Korea, where pre-existed patent misuse provisions in the Patent Act were substituted with the provisions for‘ Adjudication for Grant of Non-exclusive License’(§107), separate patent misuse doctrine cannot be recognized. But the DPMR, as the general principle of the Civil Act, could be applied to improper use of patent rights by patent trolls that run counter to the purpose of the patent system. In deciding whether a particular use of patent rights is against the doctrine, a court could weigh the benefits of patent rights holders and the prejudices of the alleged infringers and could also consider whether the patent is valid or the patent rights holders are using the patented inventions. Especially with regard to the petition for a permanent injunction, a court can use the DPMR, considering whether the related patent is valid or the patent holder has implemented the patented invention. In regard to the damages calculation following the confirmation of patent infringement, the fact that the patent holder is not implementing the patented invention and the patent is related to only a small part of the infringing product should be considered. Only when the patented invention is closely related to the demand for the whole product, the damages should be calculated based on the sales volume or margin of the whole product. Besides the above mentioned measures, to prevent the issue of weak or bad (low quality) patents that can be used by patent trolls, the proper and more detailed standard of inventive step should be established giving more predictability to be patented. In addition, when applying the doctrine of equivalents, the fact that some inventions, especially software related inventions are cumulative and incremental should be considered, and the scope of equivalence for those inventions should be narrowly established. Finally, considering the fact that the dual-track patent litigation system can be abused by patent trolls to harass alleged infringers and it is inefficient for two courts to handle almost the same issues related to the same patents, the jurisdiction for all the patent disputes should be consolidated to one court, at least at the appellate court level.

특허분쟁이 기업의 향후 혁신 활동에 미치는 영향

이종선 ( Jong-seon Lee ),김나미 ( Nami Kim ) 한국지식경영학회 2020 지식경영연구 Vol.21 No.1

Although patents have mainly been considered as the results of the invention process, of late their value as strategic assets have increasingly been emphasized. Consequently, the competition for patents among firms has intensified, and the number of patent disputes have been steadily increasing. Patent disputes, which cause enormous expense and resource utilization, increase uncertainty and have been considered as a threat or problem for the firms involved. Patent disputes are expected to have a significant impact on the decision making about subsequent innovation activities. This study attempts to analyze the effect of patent disputes on the subsequent innovative activities of the firms that are sued. After experiencing litigation as defendants, we examine their subsequent patenting strategies. According to the results of the study, firms who are experiencing patent litigation are more likely to achieve high-quality patents and cite recent technology when they apply for patents. Meanwhile, patent litigation experience has been shown to negatively affect the amount of subsequent patents applied. This study increases understanding by examining whether patent disputes, which have been mainly recognized negatively as obstacles, can be an opportunity that comes during a crisis.

블록체인 핀테크 발명의 특허법적 문제 - 특허요건을 중심으로-

조영선 한국지식재산학회 2019 産業財産權 Vol.- No.61

이 글은, 새로운 형태의 영업방법 발명으로서 블록체인에서 압도적 비중을 차지하고, 발명의 성립성ᆞ진보성ᆞ명세서 기재요건 등에고유의 쟁점을 안고 있는 핀테크 블록체인의 법적ᆞ정책적 문제들을검토한다. 통계에 의하면 우리나라는 블록체인 특허의 출원 대비 등록률에서 세계적으로 1위에 해당하는데, 이런 높은 등록률은 결국부메랑이 되어 국내 산업에 걸림돌이 될 가능성도 있다. 따라서 블록체인 문제는 신중하게 접근하여 정책적 기조의 장단점을 잘 살펴야하고, 제도적 근거도 충실히 마련해야 한다. 법리상으로 문제되는 점이 있다면 직시하고 바로잡으려는 노력 또한 필요하다. 우선, “소프트웨어가 하드웨어 자원에 의해 실현될 것”을 요구하는 종래의 컴퓨터프로그램 발명 심사기준을 블록체인 핀테크에 그대로 유지하는 것은 한계가 있으므로 ‘하드웨어 연동성’ 요건을 삭제하는 내용으로 개정할 필요가 있다. 블록체인 발명은 그 핵심이 이미 자유기술이기 때문에 진보성 인정기준과 발명의 설명 기준을 모두 높여, 지금보다는특허를 받기 까다롭게 하고, 받더라도 권리범위를 좁힐 필요가 있다. 이를 통해 특허덤불이나 특허괴물의 등장과 같은 부작용을 줄일 수도 있다. 오픈 이노베이션을 표방한 블록체인 원천기술의 개발자들의 의사가 후속 발명자들의 무분별한 특허권 획득에 의해 훼손되는것은 적절히 제어되어야 할뿐더러, 이 분야에서 오픈 이노베이션을 통한 기술의 자율적 발전ᆞ공유와 특허를 통한 후속발명의 유인 간장단점을 실증적으로 비교하고 확인하는 신중함도 필요하다. 개인정보보호 등 핀테크 블록체인의 운용에 수반될 수 있는 위험과 관련하여 통상의 기술 수준에서 가능한 보안 수단이 존재한다면 청구항에필수 구성요소로 포함시키도록 해야 하며, 적절히 이행하지 않으면산업상 이용가능성 부족 등을 이유로 특허를 거절하는 방안을 검토해 볼 필요가 있다. 이를 통해 블록체인 특허의 권리범위를 적절히제한하여 사후 보안기술의 적용이나 개발 시 침해 시비를 줄일 수있고, 비실시주체(NPE) 등이 개인의 권리침해 위험을 야기ᆞ방치한대가로 강한 특허권을 누리는 부조리를 예방할 수도 있다. This article review the legal and political issues of fin-tech blockchain, which takes overwhelming portions in blockchain and pertains special questions on patent eligibility, non-obviousness and standard of written description. Recent statistic shows Korea ranks outstanding world-top in ‘grant per application rate’ for blockchain patent. Arguably, this generosity of patent-grant may cause a boomerang effect to hamper relevant domestic industry in the near future. Hence, circumspective approach to the blockchain patent shall be necessary, scanning the pros and cons of current political stance. The institutional strategy needs to be furnished well. It is also needed to look at the legal problems squarely and to correct old institution to regulate blockchain properly. As to the patent eligibility, ‘indispensable connection with hardware’ shall be revised to cover the nature of fin-tech blockchain. For the core of blockchain technology is already disclosed to public, the threshold of non-obviousness for follow-up inventions shall be set high. By the same token, the standard of written description also must be strict, leading narrow scope of right for downstream patents. This attitude works as a preventive measures against patent thicket and patent trolls in this field. Taking account of the value of open innovation which initial donors of blockchain technology pursued, Patent Office and Courts are obliged to control the patent frenzy of downstream inventions. Furthermore, prudent and empirical review for the alternative between autonomous improvement powered by open innovation and the incentivized development towed by conventional patent system in this field. With regard to the hazards accompanied by blockchain technology: representatively, the irrecoverable and exponential accumulation of private information in the nodes, the applicant shall be coerced to include “possible” counter measures to prevent its abuse in written description and narrow the claim to commensurate with safety gear for public danger. Where the applicant fails to meet this requirement without justifiable ground, the patent shall be rejected. This rule to restrict the scope of blockchain patent may prevent patentee from alleging infringement against downstream inventions of security solutions. It also frustrates NPE who enjoys unrestricted right as a result of causing public danger.

On the Patentability of Artificial Intelligence:a review of recent cases from the U.S.

조희경 동아대학교 법학연구소 2020 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.31

As new developments in the field such as neural networks and machine learning have transformed the expectations of AI technology and what it may be capable of, the importance of AI grows exponentially not only in industrial and commercial spheres but also in educational, social and even cultural spheres of our society. Given the importance of AI technology, it follows that the inventors and those involved in the commercialization of the technology would want to protect and exploit the economic value of the technology to its full extent. Obtaining a patent is still one of the most fundamental tools in protecting the economic value of an invention by reserving its exclusive rights to the owner of the patent. However, due to the recent tightening of the requirements in the field of patent law regarding the question of patent-eligibility, it is not entirely clear whether and to what extent AI technology could be patentable. The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice v CLS Bank and subsequent decisions by the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit (CAFC) have cast doubt on whether patents that have already been issued for AI satisfy the new tests for patent eligibility and it is difficult to predict with any certainty whether new patent applications in these technologies could satisfy the requirements for patent eligibility due to the fact that these requirements are still in the process of evolution. The traditionally accepted incentive theory would indicate that a strong patent system is the foundation for strong innovation and provides motivation to inventors and offers a known mechanism to evaluate potential returns to potential investors. Although the recent cases have introduced a real element of uncertainty into the system, this will eventually diminish with an accrual of case law through evolving court decisions, and even perhaps new legislation. In the meantime, however, inventors and investors still need to be able to protect their AI technology with patents, even though patents may not necessarily offer a foolproof or ironclad protection they may once seemed to hold out, while knowing that the system was never a guarantee of any value in the invention. This article provides a review of the recent decisions by the courts in the US, including the Federal Circuit on the issue of patentability of AI technology in order to draw out some guidance regarding how inventors and investors should approach this question.

연구논문 : 후출원 특허발명을 확인대상으로 하는 권리범위확인심판

김동준 ( Dongjun Kim ) 한남대학교 과학기술법연구원 2015 과학기술법연구 Vol.21 No.3

특허발명을 확인대상으로 하여 권리범위확인심판을 청구할 수 있는지 여부는 후출원 특허발명의 실시에 해당하는 피고제품(또는 방법)의 실시가 선출원 특허권의 침해에 해당하는지 여부와 관련되는 쟁점이라고 할수 있다. 이 글에서는 ① 침해소송에서 후출원 특허의 항변이 인정될 수있는지 여부와 ② 후출원 특허발명을 확인대상으로 하는 권리범위확인심판 청구의 적법성에 대해 검토해 보았다. 침해소송에서 후출원 특허의 항변을 인정할 것인지는 특허권의 본질에 대한 이해와 관련이 있는데, 특허권의 본질을 배타권으로 보면 이러한 항변이 인정될 여지가 없을 것이다. 설사 특허권의 본질을 독점권으로 보더라도 선원우위 원칙(priority principle)을 반영한 권리조정규정 (제98조)에 의해 특허권의 ‘적극적 실시권’이 제한될 수 있음은 분명하므로 ① 후원의 이용발명조차 선원의 기본발명을 실시하는 것이 불가한데, 선원의 기본발명에 대하여 새로운 기술적 사상을 전혀 부가하지 않은 저촉관계에 있는 후원 발명의 실시를 인정하는 것은 형평의 관점에서 타당하지 않다는 점, ② 무효사유가 있는 특허권에 적극적 실시권을 인정하는 것은 곤란하다는 점 등을 고려하면, 저촉관계에 있는 후원에 관한 특허권에 기초한 실시라는 주장은 그 실시를 적법한 것으로 하는 정당한 권원의 주장으로는 인정되지 않는다고 해야 할 것이다. 한편, 권리 상호 간의 권리범위확인심판 청구에 관한 기존 대법원 판례의 입장과 그 논거는 ① 적극과 소극을 다르게 취급하는 논거가 타당하지 않고, ② 권리범위 속부 판단에서 이용관계 유무를 구분할 필요가 없으며, ③ 권리범위확인심판과 침해소송에서 그 취급을 달리할 이유가없는 등 여러 가지 면에서 타당하지 않다는 점, 권리범위확인심판이 실제 소송실무에서 중요한 역할을 하고 있는 점 등을 고려하면 제도 개선의 필요성이 인정된다. 권리범위확인심판 관련 규정인 특허법 제135조와 제140조에서 확인대상발명이 특허발명, 등록실용신안 등에 해당하는지 여부를 묻지 않고 있고, 후원 특허발명이 선원 특허발명의 권리에 속할수 있음은 특허법 제98조로부터 인정 가능하므로 권리 상호 간의 권리 범위확인심판 청구의 적법성은 해석론을 통해 충분히 도출될 수 있고 명문의 규정을 두는 것보다 해석론을 통한 방법이 바람직하다고 생각된다. Can the owner of an earlier patent prohibit the owner of a later patent from using the invention if the later patent falls within the scope of protection of the earlier patent? This article considers this question in the context of both patent scope declaration trial and infringement action. Regardless of whether the nature of a patent is a monopoly right (with a positive right of use) or an exclusive right (without a positive right of use), an accused infringer cannot use the fact that its accused device or method is covered under a later separate patent as evidence of non-infringement. First, if the nature of a patent is an exclusive right, separate patentability does not automatically negate infringement because a patent does not give the inventor the right to practice the patented invention. Second, even if the nature of a patent is a monopoly right, the positive right of use is limited when two patents with different priorities collide. The priority principle as ageneral rule of intellectual property law applies here. In addition, if the later patent offered as a defense covers the same claimed subject matter as the earlier patent accused of being infringed, then a possibility exists that the later patent offered as a defense would be invalid. Therefore, the owner of an earlier patent can prohibit the owner of a later patent from using the invention if the later patent falls within the scope of protection of the earlier patent regardless of whether the later patented invention is a dependent invention or not. According to the case law, when the subject matter compared with the patented invention is another patented invention, between a patent scope declaration trial as to infringement and a patent scope declaration trial as to non-infringement, only the latter is allowed. However, there is no reason to differentiate between the former and the latter. In addition, the relationship between earlier and later patents should be dealt with the same way both in patent scope declaration trial and in infringement action.

칫솔의 특허 경향 분석

최진성,이영희,조혜중,김서진,김혜은,SUN QIAOCHU,지형준,안규현,최홍란,김옥준 대한구강악안면병리학회 2016 대한구강악안면병리학회지 Vol.40 No.1

The basic instrument for oral hygiene is toothbrush. Many patents that are announced to enhance efficiency and convenience by changing shape and using new material. There are also patents regarding its various functions. This study, the purpose of study, was surveyed the toothbrush patents from 2005 to 2014. The patent search was done in site 'kipris' using keyword ‘toothbrush’. Among sorts of administrative measure, enrollment and extinction patents was searched, followed by classified patents into its shape, materials, function and electronic toothbrush. For the patents with function, detailed analysis was done. Total numbers of toothbrush patents decreased in 2006 to 2008, lowest in 2008, and steadily increased to 2014. The patents regarding shape was outnumbered material. Shape and material patents could be divided by handle portion and head portion patents, which patents of head portion is more than handle portion. The patents of function could be classified into certain situation or combinate functions to its natural function. Function patents increase with the ratio of total patents. For brush patents, they have a tendence of increase. In addition, from a shape and function, toothbrush patents going to be more variable. It choose small quantity batch production. From a shape of toothbrush, patents regarding head portion are going to increase. And it has a tendency to change the shape rather than the development of materials for efficiency of toothbrushing. Electronic toothbrush will be placed certain position, however, conventional toothbrush also will place large portion by estimating patent number and there be more progressive. Some patents will catch popularity like combination of brush and paste, replacement of brush head, attraction for toothbrushing, and hygiene tooth brush. Also disposable toothbrush and portable toothbrush are getting popularity along with social phenomenon.

특허괴물의 현상 분석과 특허제도의 본질에 대한 고찰

윤권순(Yoon, Kwon-Soon),윤종민(Yoon, Chong-Min) 세창출판사 2010 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.58

"Patent troll" was first coined by intel, whose in-house counsel was quoted to have said, "Patent troll is somebody who tries to make a lot of money off a patent that they are not practising and have no intention of practising and in most cases never practiced." They obtain patents, not to make, use, or sell new products and technologies, but sorely to force third parties to purchase licenses. The technology industry's principal complaint is that patent trolls have no interest in finding business solutions or "win-win" scenarios. A patent troll's only goal is to extract quick cash, not to create technology development. The rate of patent lawsuits is rising faster than any other type of litigation. As a result, company resources diverted from R&D to litigation may deter investment in innovation and distort its directions. Patent litigation is a high-risk, high-cost proposition. A Staggering fifty percent of all patent verdicts are reversed on appeal. The significant litigation costs provide a strong incentive for most competing companies to find a path to resolution outside of litigation. There is no provision for patents to be invalidated merely because they are used in manner that discourages innovation. Under the current patent system, a finding of infringement would result in automatic issuance of a permanent injunction and other penalties. The cost of litigation are often greater than the licensing fees the troll requests. These costs have adverse effects on future innovation because they take away from companies' research and development budgets. The results is that patent actually restrict the progress of science and innovation, the exact opposite effect that they are intended to have. The impact of patent trolls has led to propose patent reform act in 2005, 2007 and 2009. The patent reform act resets the table on issues of liability and remedies in ways that will encourage industry and discourage patent trolls. By lowering the threshold for invalidation a patent, the patent reform act will give targeted companies new opportunities to challenge the dubious patent. The rising speculation in intangible assets by patent trolls may indicate that patent are ready to evolve to the next level. Just as air space rights and carbon emissions before them, patents could be traded on stock exchange. This evolution could take the form of a Patent Investment Trust, modeled on the popular Real Estate investment trust. Patent Investment Trust could eventually lead to a stable market for patent sales and licensing. Patent has been well regarded as property like other tangible property. It is said that primary value of holding a patent is the right to exclude others from the manufacture, use or sale of the patented article. Actually, patent was a special legal privilege justified only because these "monopolies of invention" served the "benefit of society". Therefore, it is time to rebuild a sui generis right for information or knowledge based on their nature. The nature of knowledge is to dissemination. Therefore the legal structure for knowledge i.e. "Knowledge Right" should not contain injunction, but only contain monetary compensation.

Legal Method of Defending against Patent Trolls

SOHN Yong-Keun 한국법학원 2010 저스티스 Vol.- No.115

특허괴물은 특허를 보유하고 있으면서, 제품을 생산하지 않거나 서비스를 제공하지 않고, 특허침해자를 상대로 그 특허권을 행사하는 소규모의 발명자를 의미한다. 다른 발명자의 권리를 침해하려는 목적으로 특허를 사용하기도 하는 변화된 환경과 함께 권리내용이 모호한 부실특허의 양산과 특허소송의 판결에 일관성이 없는 등 재판결과의 불명확성이 특허괴물의 탄생과 성장을 촉진시켰다고 할 수 있다. 특허괴물은 소규모 발명가도 시장에서 자금을 조달하여 새로운 발명이 가능하도록 하는 등의 장점이 있으나, 부실 특허가 많은 소송을 일으켜 기회비용을 발생시키고, 질 낮은 특허가 양산되어 라이센싱 비용을 상승시키는 등 단점도 많다. 지금까지 미국 연방항소법원은 특허 침해가 인정되는 경우 자동적으로 영구적인 금지명령(automatic permanent injunction)을 내려왔다. 이 때문에 특허를 침해한 기업을 상대로 비교적 손쉽게 합의금을 받을 수 있었고, 특허괴물은 막대한 합의금을 얻는 수단으로 금지명령을 남용하여 왔다. 미국은 이를 해결하기 위하여 특허법을 개정하려 하였으나 실패하였다. 최근 미국 연방대법원의 판결은 미국 특허법 제283조의 규정에 따라 자유재량으로 4가지 요소를 고려하여 침해금지명령을 내리도록 하는 제한적인 입장을 취하였다. 이는 보완적 기능을 할 것이다. 한국에서 특허괴물 방지에 관한 방안으로서는, 권리남용의 법리를 응용하여 특허괴물의 권리행사를 제한하는 방안과 소송신탁의 법리에 따라 특허권남용을 규제하는 방안, 특허투자재단을 결성하는 방안 등이 논의되고 있다. 특허권자의 권리행사가 정당한지 여부를 판단하는 것은 어려운 일이나, 과연 Patent Troll이 특허제도가 추구하는 목적을 달성하고 있는지를 주의 깊게 검토할 필요가 있다. 명확한 기준을 마련하는 것이 필요한 시점이다. Patent troll is a term used for a small-scale inventor holding patents that enforces them against infringers, with no intention to manufacture or market the patented products. Nowadays patents are utilized for the purpose of organizing a portfolio by purchase or strategically infringing upon other inventor's rights by means of patent. Such situation is a kind of fertile grounds for patent trolls. And bad patents with ambiguous extent of patent claims are strong weapons for patent trolls. So far, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ordered an automatic permanent injunction where the patent is valid and its infringement is recognized. Abusing the above practice, patent troll gets the enormous settlement money alleging patent infringement. An attempt to revise the U.S. Patent Act was made as one method of solving the above problem, but it has not been solved yet. Recently the judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court has a significant meaning as legal defense against patent trolls. In the judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court held that four elements could be considered with discretion to order the injunction against the infringement. Discussions on legal methods to prevent patent troll in Korea are geneally summarized as follows ; ① Disscussion as to abuse of rights ② Regulation against abuse of patent rights in accordance with legal theory of litigation trusts ③ Prevention by means of patent investment trusts ④ Establishment of public patent foundation. It is difficult to decide whether the exercise of patent-holder's rights is fair. But, we need to conduct an in-depth examination of whether patent-holder's exercise of rights. From now on, it is necessary for us to prepare clear standards.

Patenting Dilemma for Startups: Number of Applied Patents, Patent Imitability, and Level of VC Funding

Christophe FERAUD,김봉선,김언수 한국벤처창업학회 2019 벤처창업연구 Vol.14 No.3

Should a startup file for a patent subject to imitation in its quest to attract venture capital(VC) investors? Considering the US pharmaceutical biotechnology industry context, this paper attempts to answer this question by investigating the relations between the number of applied patents of startups, patent imitability, and the total amount of money the startups received as their first VC funding round. Data of 157 US-based pharmaceutical biotechnology startups founded in between 1995 and 2005 are analyzed. Empirical results from this study show that the number of applied patents is positively related to the total amount of money received at the time of the first funding round, and patent imitability is negatively related to the total amount of money received as first VC funding round. Nonetheless, the interaction term between the number of applied patents of startups and patent imitability came out as positive, raising interesting questions and implications for innovation-oriented startup entrepreneurs. The current study's empirical findings suggest that, in the pharmaceutical biotechnology sector, VC investors pay attention to the quantity and quality of the patents possessed by startups when they decide the level of funding. In particular, imitability of applied patents may not be a one-sided concept related to negative features such as the weak protectability of an invention. Rather, patent imitability may be a multi-facet element which also contains positive attractiveness of the startup's invention. Furthermore, it seems that the positive side of imitability can be augmented by the number of applied patents.