Abstract
We start by identifying IPR processes as business processes focusing on their inputs, outputs, and activity sequencing and resource allocation that consequently enable the development of IPR process models. Additionally, we look at various business process definitions in order to set foundations for the empirical research in the following chapters.
The modelling of IPR processes will then be presented by the use of the TAD modelling approach and the steps necessary to transform the IPRM process into a business process model. Both business process modelling and the Activity Table technique are used to identify the value-added IPRM process outputs and, if necessary, refocus the IPR process to achieve this.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
A proprietary strategy is the logic of using patents as isolating or deflecting mechanisms, shielding the firm’s key competitive advantages from imitation. This can be done by exploiting IPR through the goods market (i.e. putting the product on the market) or through the market for ideas (e.g. licensing). It will usually be connected to terms such as building fences, “offensive ” blocking and pre-emption, building “offensive ” thickets (Somaya 2012). A defensive strategy is, simply put, a strategy for defending against patents owned (and enforced) by others. Hence, it is directed towards stopping others from occupying a certain market/technological space. Another note: while the use of the term defensive (as used by practitioners ) may appear to be similar to a defensive patent strategy, companies sometimes need to assert their “defensive patents”—that is, go on the offensive —if the defensive strategy is to be credible (Somaya 2003). Lastly, if the company sees IPRs as bargaining chips, we are talking about a leveraging strategy. This strategy is all about pursuing direct or indirect profit opportunities; we may see this connected to terms like cross-licensing, patent pools, signalling, IPR-based cooperation, entry to a new market, standard setting.
- 2.
Pithelky (2001) also sees IPRM tactical and strategic issues—the latter a concern of senior IP managers—split into internal and external. The first envelops issues that are internal to the company (e.g. IPR registration, issues regarding confidentiality, and raising IP awareness) and the second issues concerning licensing, IP information, and litigation.
References
Ackerman, F., Walls, L., Meer, R., & Boorman, M. (1999). Taking a strategic view of BPR to develop a multidisciplinary framework. Journal of Operational Research Society, 50(3), 195–204.
Aguilar-Saven, R., & Olhager, J. (2003). Integration of product, process and functional orientations: Principles and a case study. In H. S. Jagdev, J. C. Wortmann, & H. J. Pels (Eds.), Collaborative systems for production management. Vol. 129 of IFIP—The International Federation for Information Processing (pp. 375–389). Springer US.
Chou, T., & Haller, H. (2008). Reasonable royalty and the division of profit for probabilistic patents. ASLEA Papers. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from http://www.en.kyushu-u.ac.jp/aslea/apapers/AsLEA-2008-TeyuChou.pdf
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Damij, N. (2007). Business process modelling using diagrammatic and tabular techniques. Business Process Management Journal, 13(1), 70–90.
Damij, N., Damij, T., Grad, J., & Jelenc, F. (2008). A methodology for business process improvement and IS development. Information and Software Technology, 50, 1127–1141.
Damij, T. (1998). Development of a hospital information system using the TAD method. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association, 5, 184–193.
Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Dosi, G., & Egidi, M. (2000). Substantive and procedural uncertainty. In G. Dosi (Ed.), Innovation, market organization and economic dynamics: Selected essays (pp. 165–188). Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Drucker, P. F. (2010). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Oxford and Burlington: Elsevier.
Elton, J., Shah, B., & Voyzey, J. (2002). Intellectual property: Partnering for profit. The McKinsey Quarterly, 4(2002), 59–67.
Hall, B., & Ziedonis, H. R. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.
Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 104–112.
Harrison, S. S., & Sullivan, P. H. (2012). Edison in the boardroom revisited: How leading companies realize value from their intellectual property: Revisited. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kock, N., & McQueen, R. J. (1998). An action research case-study of effects of asynchronous groupware support on productivity and outcome quality of process redesign groups. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 149–168.
Laguna, M., & Marklund, J. (2005). Business process modeling, simulation, and design. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lemley, M. A., & Shapiro, C. (2005). Probabilistic patents. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2), 75–98.
Modic, D. (2013). New views on intellectual property protection in the context of innovation systems (in case of Slovenia). Dissertation, Faculty of Advanced Social Sciences.
Modic, D., & Damij, N. (2016). “Own-it”: Managing intellectual property processes via the activity table in creative industries. In A. Lugmayr, E. Stojmenova, K. Stanoevska, & R. Wellington (Eds.), Information systems and management in eMedia industry (pp. 101–117). Cham: Springer.
Neuheusler, P. (2009). Formal vs. informal protection instruments and the strategic use of patents in an Expected-Utility framework. Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis, No. 20, Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe.
Pithelky, R. H. (2001). Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: Patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Research Policy, 30, 425–442.
Rivette, K. G., & Kline, D. (2000). Rembrandts in the attic: Unlocking the hidden value of patents. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decision not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 17.
Somaya, D. (2012). Patent strategy and management: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1084–1114.
Troy, I., & Werle, R. (2008). Uncertainty and market for patents. MPIfG Working Paper 08/2, Max Plank Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne (pp. 1–24).
Ziedonis, R. H. (2008). Intellectual property and innovation. In Handbook of technology and innovation management (pp. 295–334).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Modic, D., Damij, N. (2018). Innovation Property Rights Process Management. In: Towards Intellectual Property Rights Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69011-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69011-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69010-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69011-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)