The Patenting Paradox

“Explore current practices of IP management, bottlenecks in companies resulting in limited value extraction, and possible solutions. Ideal for IP managers. €80 excluding VAT where applicable and shipping costs
Exclusively sold by Patentopolis. If you are interested, contact us

Book Details
ISBN: 9789059722309
Published date: 11 February 2008

272 Pages
Dimensions: 240x170mm
Language: English

The book ‘The Patenting Paradox’ by Dr. Arnaud Gasnier is the outcome of a 3-year PhD research project carried out at the Delft University of Technology (2004-07)

This project has been sponsored by the Research Fund of the European Patent Organization.

The book address some of the challenges frequently faced by most companies today.

  • Provide models and tools to help companies understand IP management in the competitive environment.

  • Propose key performance indicators and methods to benchmark and project the performance of a company’s IP management.Current practices are illustrated with pertinent patent information and various patent mapping analyses using Aurekafrom Thomson Reuters.

  • Analyze the roots of the “patenting paradox” in companies,through a survey among 1,100 companies.

  • Explore new ways for companies to solve the paradox. The book describes a rather new approach: applying serious gaming to the field of IP. It describes an early version of Patentopolis, a business game on patents. It also presents results from experiments carried in universities and at European Patent Academy among professionals to show the effectiveness of the tool with different audiences.

More specifically, the book (of approximately 280 pages) includes seven chapters.

1. A patent drama is revealed

This chapter pictures the “dramatic” increase in patenting that has occurred during the last two decades. It quantifies this phenomenon, explains its drivers and describes the trends. It also presents the business relevance of the paradox (case study on the chemical group DSM).

2. A Pandora’s box of concepts and practices

In this chapter the concept of patent management is defined. A new conceptual model named RMBV (Research, Manufacturing, Building, and Valorization) is presented to explain the current practices of patent management. Four business models are described with four types of patent strategy. Empirical foundations are given from an audit of 70 companies and from actual examples based on patent information tools (Aureka from Thomson Reuters).

3. The alchemist’s room

In this chapter the performance of patent management is under review. A new measurement framework called “Patent power” is presented with key normalized indicators from direct measures (inputs and outputs of the RMBV model) and two dashboards to help managers navigate. Detailed methods for the positioning, benchmark, and projections of the firms’ patent management are given, with actual examples from patent databases and annual reports.

4. The plot of the wrongs

This chapter explains the “patenting paradox”: it describes the series of events and relationships in the firms that leads to this paradox. A second hypothesis is there examined: the attention process is at the origins of the paradox. This chapter also presents a survey among 1,110 patent users and its main results obtained from statistical analyses to validate the second hypothesis and to reply to the following questions. What do the firms actually know about patents? How do they perceive patents?

5. Where is the Deus ex Machina?

This chapter explores how the firms can remedy the “patenting paradox”. Three dimensions are at stake: education, collaboration and strategy. A third hypothesis is set: interventions in the firms, using a business game on patents, can solve the paradox. Such a game and three interventions using it have been designed.

6. The dice are rolled!

This chapter presents the efficiency of the three interventions which have been tested among 160 participants (under-graduates and professionals) in Europe. Experimental results from quantitative methods (pre- and post-tests) and qualitative observations are presented.

7. The final stand

This chapter provides guidelines to help the firms use these interventions and the game for purposes of education, collaboration and strategy. At the end of the book, four annexes are added: (1) the operations of patent management; (2) detailed results from the survey among 1,106 patent users; (3) strategic workshop, a fictitious case in the gaming industry; and (4) results from experiments in Holland, France, and Austria.

Reader’s Testimonials

“The book is an excellent example of an interdisciplinary study. The inclusion of methods from the social sciences therein is admirable. I fully support the author’s statement that it is a cultural issue for multi actor systems with the main purpose to promote dialogue and action. The presentation follows clear lines of reasoning introducing the necessary instruments like RMBV, Patent Power and the Business Models. They are all easy to understand and comprehensive enough to be representative. The theoretical conclusions are always accompanied with practical proofs from the surveys and from the “Fact & Figures” illustrations that make them much more convincing. Introducing the uncertainty factor – the die and the games as a method to solve complex problems in a probabilistic environment is an effort to overcome the main shortcomings of the calculus – its inability to measure quality, but just quantity.”
Dr. Nikola Totzev, Totzev & Partners
Patent Agency Bulgaria

“The Patenting Paradox is rich with insights about the situations encountered by those who manage patenting. Satisfyingly to this patent attorney, it includes a remarkable study of something that should matter: how to maximize patent value for a given amount of effort. A number of patent attorneys have been trying to convince clients to shift from pursuing quantity to quality, but could not prove their case. After all, it is hard to count consistently the broadness of unique patent claims. Finally, Dr. Arnaud Gasnier proved it here mathematically, by counting the return on the investment for patenting. Well done!”
Gregory T. Kavounas, U.S. Patent Attorney