Skip to main content

IPR Characteristics in Practice: Back-Office to Front-Office

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Towards Intellectual Property Rights Management
  • 538 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter answers the question of IPRM characteristics and scope. First, we delve into attributes such as “integrated ,” “aligned ,” and so on to discern their meaning in practice in IPR savvy companies . We show what is behind these often used monikers.

Second, we present the strategic IPRM framework and then proceed with defining the scope of IPRM through the bundle of activities defined as Back-office , Front-office, or Mixed, extending upon the last part of Chap. 5. We show not only the complementarity of legal and administrative tasks with business-oriented tasks but also the broad involvement of different employees and different departments. We present a flowchart of IPR process activities . The chapter is enriched with citations by the top IP executives . We provide interview-based recommendations for successful IPR practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alkaersig, L., Beukel, K., & Reichstein, T. (2015). Intellectual property rights management: Rookies, dealers and strategists. Hampshire: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (1988). Winning at new products. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., & Bader, M. A. (2017). Patentmanagement in der Open Innovation Ära. In O. Gassmann & Bader (Eds.), Patentmanagement: Innovationen erfolgreich nutzen und schützen. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holgersson, M. (2013). Patent management in entrepreneurial SMEs: A literature review and an empirical study of innovation appropriation, patent propensity, and motives. R&D Management, 43(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, W. (2006). Effective mechanisms for challenging the validity of patents. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/meetings/en/2006/scp_of_ge_06/presentations/scp_of_ge_06_holzer.pdf

  • Jell, F. (2012). Patent filling strategies and patent management: An empirical study. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag and Springer Fachmedien.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keupp, M., Lhuillery, S., Garcia-Torres, M. A., & Raffo, J. (2009). SME-IP: 2nd report economic focus study on SMEs and intellectual property in Switzerland. Bern: Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). Collaborative mechanisms for intellectual property management in the life sciences. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (2006). Innovation process. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Modic, D., Damij, N. (2018). IPR Characteristics in Practice: Back-Office to Front-Office. In: Towards Intellectual Property Rights Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69011-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics