Knowledge with a traceable source.

Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy

David J. Teece, 1986, Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305

DOI10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2 ↗

Scope and context

A strategy framework for capturing innovation returns, considering imitation, collaboration and the complementary assets required for commercialisation.

Practical relevance

A question for your own review: beyond exclusive rights, do you have manufacturing, distribution, funding and implementation partners?

Limits of application

A classic management framework, not legislation or proof that a particular application is worthwhile. Reassess it against today’s industry.

Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms’ Incentives for Technology Licensing

Ashish Arora, Marco Ceccagnoli, 2006, Management Science, 52(2), 293–308

DOI10.1287/mnsc.1050.0437 ↗

Scope and context

An empirical study linking patent protection effectiveness, complementary assets and licensing decisions, using US industrial R&D survey data.

Practical relevance

Before discussing a licence, map the resources: who develops the technology, who implements it and how will the parties allocate risk?

Limits of application

The results concern a specific US business survey; they do not establish contractual terms or the value of a particular technology in Poland.

The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979–1995

Bronwyn H. Hall, Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, 2001, The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128

DOI10.2307/2696400 ↗

Scope and context

A study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, examining patent portfolios and the bargaining role of patents.

Practical relevance

When reviewing a portfolio, separate protection of your own inventions, access to third-party technology and opportunities to negotiate cross-licences.

Limits of application

Historical, sector-specific US evidence. Patent counts do not establish validity, quality or freedom to operate for a particular product.

Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)

Wesley M. Cohen, Richard R. Nelson, John P. Walsh, 2000, NBER Working Paper, 7552

DOI10.3386/w7552 ↗

Scope and context

A survey of US R&D laboratories comparing patents, secrecy, lead time, and manufacturing and marketing capabilities as mechanisms for capturing returns.

Practical relevance

Questions for the team: what will you disclose, what remains confidential, who has access and which information loses value upon publication?

Limits of application

A working paper, not a peer-reviewed journal article. The 1994 data do not replace a current trade-secret or patentability assessment.

Why do SMEs file trademarks? Insights from firms in innovative industries

Jörn H. Block, Christian O. Fisch, Alexander Hahn, Philipp G. Sandner, 2015, Research Policy, 44(10), 1915–1930

DOI10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.007 ↗

Scope and context

A survey of trademark filing motives among 600 innovative SMEs, distinguishing protection, marketing and exchange-related motives.

Practical relevance

In the brand brief, state the filing objective: protecting a name, developing sales channels, investor discussions or licensing the sign.

Limits of application

A study of business motives cannot establish registrability or trademark conflicts. Those questions require a separate legal and register-based assessment.

Patents and knowledge diffusion: The effect of early disclosure

Stefano Horst Baruffaldi, Markus Simeth, 2020, Research Policy, 49(4), Article 103927

DOI10.1016/j.respol.2020.103927 ↗

Scope and context

An empirical study of earlier US patent publication and the diffusion of technical information measured through subsequent patent citations.

Practical relevance

In the project timeline, distinguish internal documentation, filing and later publication. Check when competitors may be able to read the invention.

Limits of application

Citations proxy information flows rather than all knowledge transfer. The US reform does not determine Polish procedural deadlines or exceptions.

Little Guidance for the Application of Copyright Law to Designs in Cofemel

Tobias Endrich-Laimböck, 2020, GRUR International, 69(3), 264–269

DOI10.1093/grurint/ikz019 ↗

Scope and context

A legal commentary on applying copyright originality to industrial design and applied art following the CJEU’s Cofemel judgment.

Practical relevance

Document creative choices, technical constraints, authorship and design versions separately. Design registration alone does not complete the copyright analysis.

Limits of application

The author’s 2020 opinion, not a court ruling. Read it alongside later judgments, including Mio/konektra from 2025.

Unité de l’art is here to stay—Cofemel and its consequences

Annette Kur, 2020, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 15(4), 290–300

DOI10.1093/jiplp/jpaa035 ↗

Scope and context

A legal analysis of the consequences of Cofemel for the relationship between design protection and copyright in the European Union.

Practical relevance

For your product, map appearance, creative elements, branding and technical solutions separately; identify the owner of each relevant right.

Limits of application

The 2020 scholarship does not mean rights automatically accumulate. Update the assessment against later judgments and current EU design legislation.

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.

Court of Justice of the European Union · C-39/97 · 1998-09-29

ECLIECLI:EU:C:1998:442

Practical relevance

Likelihood of confusion involves interdependent assessments of signs and goods or services. A brand review should identify their nature, purpose, users and competitive relationship.

Limits of application

The judgment interpreted an earlier directive. Sharing a Nice class or a word is not decisive; current legislation and the case facts remain essential.

SABEL BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport

Court of Justice of the European Union · C-251/95 · 1997-11-11

ECLIECLI:EU:C:1997:528

Practical relevance

Compare marks as a whole, considering visual, aural and conceptual impressions and dominant elements. Mere association does not by itself establish likelihood of confusion.

Limits of application

This concerns a particular confusion-based ground. Protection for marks with a reputation may rely on different conditions and needs a separate assessment.

Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV

Court of Justice of the European Union · C-683/17 · 2019-09-12

ECLIECLI:EU:C:2019:721

Practical relevance

A product’s aesthetic effect cannot substitute for copyright requirements. The analysis requires originality and subject matter identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity.

Limits of application

Not every attractive or registered design is automatically a copyright work. Read this alongside Brompton and Mio/konektra rather than as a standalone protection test.

SI and Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get

Court of Justice of the European Union · C-833/18 · 2020-06-11

ECLIECLI:EU:C:2020:461

Practical relevance

A shape’s technical function does not end the copyright inquiry. Determine whether design constraints left free and creative choices expressing the author’s personality.

Limits of application

Alternative shapes do not by themselves establish originality. The CJEU left the factual assessment to the national court, focusing on circumstances when the design was created.

SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd

Court of Justice of the European Union · C-406/10 · 2012-05-02

ECLIECLI:EU:C:2012:259

Practical relevance

Software functionality, a programming language and data-file formats are not expression protected as a computer program. Distinguish functionality, source code and documentation.

Limits of application

This does not authorise copying code, manuals or trade secrets. Licence terms, other rights and permitted software study require separate assessment.

DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH

Court of Justice of the European Union · C-395/16 · 2018-03-08

ECLIECLI:EU:C:2018:172

Practical relevance

Assess all objective circumstances when appearance features are solely dictated by technical function. The existence of alternative designs does not by itself defeat the exclusion.

Limits of application

The judgment concerned Article 8(1) of former Regulation 6/2002. Check current Regulation 2026/715 and its correlation table when applying the reasoning today.

Pedestrian simulation

European Patent Office — Enlarged Board of Appeal · G 1/19 · 2021-03-10

ECLIECLI:EP:BA:2021:G000119.20210310

Practical relevance

A computer simulation may produce a technical effect relevant to inventive step. Modelling a system according to technical principles is not, by itself, sufficient.

Limits of application

This Enlarged Board decision concerns the EPC system. It does not make every algorithm patentable or decide infringement by a particular product.

Reliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (plausibility)

European Patent Office — Enlarged Board of Appeal · G 2/21 · 2023-03-23

ECLIECLI:EP:BA:2023:G000221.20230323

Practical relevance

Later evidence cannot be disregarded solely because of its date. The claimed technical effect must nevertheless be linked to the original application’s teaching and the same invention.

Limits of application

This is not permission to repair any incomplete disclosure after filing. Disclosure, inventive step, admissible amendments and the particular evidence require distinct assessments.

Mio and Others / konektra — joined cases

Court of Justice of the European Union · C-580/23 and C-795/23 · 2025-12-04

ECLIECLI:EU:C:2025:941

Practical relevance

Utilitarian objects face the same originality standard as other works. Identify recognisably reproduced creative elements; a similar overall impression cannot substitute for that copyright analysis.

Limits of application

This interprets copyright in two preliminary references, not protection for every item of furniture. Keep copyright infringement analysis distinct from the design-right infringement test.

Polish Industrial Property Law

IdentifierUstawa z 30.06.2000 r.; Dz.U. 2001 nr 49 poz. 508, ze zm.

The principal Polish statute on patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks and other industrial property rights. Consult the current text and subsequent amendments.

Polish Patent Attorneys Act

IdentifierUstawa z 11.04.2001 r.; Dz.U. 2001 nr 49 poz. 509, ze zm.

Governs patent attorneys, the protected professional title, professional practice, representation and the professional body.

European Union Trade Mark Regulation

IdentifierRozporządzenie (UE) 2017/1001; CELEX 32017R1001

Governs EU trademarks, including refusal grounds, applications, opposition, registered rights and EUIPO proceedings. Check the current version for the relevant matter.

European Union Designs Regulation

IdentifierRozporządzenie (UE) 2026/715; CELEX 32026R0715; obowiązuje od 01.07.2026

The codified EU design regime, in force from 1 July 2026. When reading judgments under Regulation 6/2002, check the correlation table and current provisions.

Trade Secrets Directive

IdentifierDyrektywa (UE) 2016/943; CELEX 32016L0943

EU rules against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of confidential know-how and business information. In Poland, also consult implementing legislation, particularly the Act on Combating Unfair Competition.

European Patent Convention (EPC)

IdentifierEuropean Patent Convention; Article 52 et seq.

The treaty governing European patent proceedings before the EPO, including patentability and appeals. The EPO is not an EU institution; the EPC is a separate treaty system.

Polish Code of Civil Procedure

IdentifierDz.U. 2026 poz. 468 ze zm.; art. 87, 87², 479⁸⁹–479¹²⁹

Representation, jurisdiction of Polish IP courts and specific procedural instruments. Technical categories in Article 479⁹⁰ § 2 belong exclusively to the Warsaw Regional Court.

Polish Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts

IdentifierDz.U. 2026 poz. 143 ze zm.; art. 35, 52 § 3, 173–176

Administrative judicial review and cassation complaints. Admissibility, representation and time limits require a case-specific assessment; reconsideration is not invariably mandatory.

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Identifier2013/C 175/01; art. 32 i 48

UPC competence and separate representation requirements. Poland is outside the operating UP/UPC system; relevance depends on the right and territory concerned.