CEIPI summer school on IP in Europe 2018 - Presentation IP Strategies in Europe

© 2018 STI-IPM, Munich, Prof. Dr. Alexander J. Wurzer
Page 1 of 64
IP Strategies in Europe
06.07.2018
IP Strategy - Industry dependency and success factors
Prof. Dr. Alexander J. Wurzer

Page 2 of 64
▪ Course of studies
Founded in 2006 to enable the European industry to gain competitive
advantage in digital transformation
▪ Executive IP Management Days
Annual exchange of industry best practice
▪ Conferences
Interdisciplinary exchange between industry, academia and
institutions to push the development of economic benefits of IP
▪ Graduate School
Graduate school dedicated to industrial subjects with graduate
students from the industry
▪ Blog
Communication platform for customer-focused IP strategies in times
of digitization (www.ipforbusiness.org)
CEIPI Master of IP Law and Management
(MIPLM)

Page 3 of 64
Thinking in business
models
Customer focused
thinking
Overcoming
silo thinking
Thinking faster
and more agile
IP design as a leadership tool:
Opportunities from digital complexity
Challenge digitalization and IP design

Page 4 of 64
MIPLM Industry Partners and
Best Practice Case Studies

Page 5 of 64
▪ Purpose in different industries
▪ Characteristics in differentiation centers
▪ Approach for implementation
▪ Summary
Questions on IP Strategy

Page 6 of 64
Increasing IP expenditure does not always
have the desired effect
IP-related expenses
Financialbusinesssuccess(EBIT*)
Aspiration Reality(**)
* At corporate or business unit level
IP-related expenses
** Sources:
1 - Harhoff, - Maschinenbau etc.;
2 - Ceccagnoli, M., A. Gambardella, P. Giuri, G. Licht, M. Mariani (2005), “Study on Evaluating the Knowledge Economy – What Are Patents Actually Worth? The Value of
Patents for Today’s Economy and Society”, European Commission, DG Internal Market, Tender No. MARKT/2004/09/E, Final Report for Lot 1;
3 - Hundertmark, Nutzen und Management von Schutzinstrumenten, Diss. Univ. Munich: 2012.
Challenge:
Effective
IP strategyFinancialbusinesssuccess(EBIT*)

Page 7 of 64
Rising complexity of IP management
caused by digitization

Page 8 of 64
Photo: www.idoc.eu

Page 9 of 64
The four stages of Industrial Revolution
First programmable logic
controller (PLC) 1969
4. Industrial revolution
based on cyber-physical
Systems
First production line,
Cincinnati slaughterhouses 1870
uses electronics and IT to
achieve further automation of
manufacturing
First mechanical loom 1784
follows introduction of electrically-
powered mass production based
on the division of labour
follows introduction of water-
and steam-powered mechanical
manufacturing facilities
End of
18th century
Beginning
20th century
Beginning
1970ies
today
Risingcomplexity
Illustration: IFS GmbH & Co. KG based on DFKI 2011

Page 10 of 64
The fourth industrial revolution creates a single global economy supported by
standards, connectedness, innovation and IP.
Burial of Pope John Paul II Speech by Pope Francis

Page 11 of 64
Industry-Dependent Freedom of Choice
when Designing an IP strategy

Page 12 of 64
Industry-Dependent Freedom of Choice:
Digital Health

Page 13 of 64
Generic IP-Strategies: Fortress Monopoly
Compare: Pike, C.Y.: Virtual Monopoly, London: 2001
IP-Strategy
Typical
strategy user
Typical
sectors
Exploitation
Inherent
problem
Fortress monopoly
▪ Large portfolios
▪ Market barriers
▪ Consistent action against
infringements
▪ Pfizer
▪ Merck
▪ Astra Zeneca
▪ Xerox
▪ Pharmaceutical
▪ Chemical
▪ Premium price ▪ Patent expiry
problem
▪ Antitrust law
Picture: https://pixabay.com

Page 14 of 64
Generic IP-Strategies: Value-added Monopoly
IP-Strategy
Typical
strategy user
Typical
sectors
Exploitation
Inherent
problem
Value-added monopoly
▪ Protection of user relevant
features
▪ Strategic patents to obstruct
competitors
▪ Fast documentation and
protection
▪ Beiersdorf
▪ Nestlé
▪ Consumer
products
▪ Automotive
▪ Cost benefits
▪ User benefits
▪ Time trap
Bild: https://pixabay.com

Page 15 of 64
Generic IP-Strategies: Hub Monopoly
Compare: Pike, C.Y.: Virtual Monopoly, London: 2001 Picture: https://pixabay.com
IP-Strategy
Typical
strategy user
Typical sectors Exploitation
Inherent
problem
Hub monopoly
▪ Standard-setting
proprietary rights
▪ Rights pooling
▪ IP holding organization
▪ Sony
▪ Philips
▪ Matsushita
▪ Siemens
▪ Telekom
▪ Consumer
electronics
▪ IT / telecommunication
▪ Entry license ▪ Technology
shift

Page 16 of 64
Generic IP-Strategies: Monopoly in-a-box
Bild: https://pixabay.com
IP-Strategy
Typical
strategy user
Inherent
problem
Monopoly in-a-box
Based on:
▪ well-defined portfolio
▪ good technology
coverage
▪ enforceable rights
▪ Cambridge
Antibody
▪ Powderject
▪ Hoffmann La
Roche
▪ Shimano
▪ Intel
▪ Biotechnology
▪ Mechanical devices
▪ Consumer products
▪ Entry license ▪ Technology
shift

Page 17 of 64
Generic IP-Strategies: Value Chain Monopoly
IP-Strategy
Typical
strategy user
Inherent
problem
Value chain monopoly
▪ Collect, prepare, and make
available production-relevant
data for adjacent stages in
the value chain
▪ Protection of software-
implemented inventions
▪ Voith Paper
▪ Thyssen Krupp
▪ Supplying industry
▪ Metal
▪ Paper
▪ Market share
▪ Lock-in-effects
▪ OEMs’
second source
requirements
Picture: http://www.papiertechnologe.de Picture: http://www.acatech.de

Page 18 of 64
Structure follows Strategy
Protection Center Differentiation Center
Know-how protection Efficient protection
Advantages
Disadvantages
Tendencies
• quick informal decisions
„if in doubt – file!“
• low personnel resource linkage
at filing procedures
• High costs and budget
requirements
• Implementation effort
• Management effort if
cost-induced portfolio adjustment
• uncontrolled piling up of
IP assets
• lag-structure development between
product and patent portfolio
• Efficient product protection
(USP orientation)
• Cost controlling
• Resource requirement
• high personnel integration in
innovation process
• Information demand:
Risks, opportunities and strategy
• Resistance while implementation
• No strict realization
in daily business

Page 19 of 64
Structure follows Strategy

Page 20 of 64
360° IP Strategy

Page 21 of 64
360° IP Strategy Objectives Matrix
Bedürfnisse
Businessmodel
realization
Cost impact Earnings impact
Market perspectiveResource perspective
Safeguarding
value creation
Exclusifying
resources
Skimming the
willingness to pay
Strategic prohibition
against competitors
Competition
positioning
Communicat-
ing the USP
Managing
Risks
Suppressing
Imitation
Designing
the market
position

Page 22 of 64
Link to the introduction movie

Page 23 of 64
Agricultural machinery:
▪ High dynamics in the industry
▪ Employees: Formerly > 60%, today <3%
▪ Early on need for adjustments through efficiency
pressure
CLAAS started early, relying on digitization:
Intelligent products
▪ Networking in the Eco-System
▪ Case in point for digitization in agriculture
Good example of successful IP strategy:
▪ CLAAS is a pioneer in digitization
▪ Digital value added chain exclusified by means of IP
▪ Effective differentiation in competition
▪ Various patent applications in the field of
“digital farming" and “precision farming"
Example: Claas Digital Farming

Page 24 of 64
Objective: Efficiency gains!
▪ Increase yields
▪ Reduce effort and costs
Manual processing
Processing with machines
Enlargement of the machine
Problem:
▪ Soil compaction by weight of the machines
▪ Result: plant growth is hindered
▪ Large (expensive) booths for storage
Claas Digital Farming
Agriculture in former Times

Page 25 of 64
Customers want to buy productivity - no machines!
▪ Farmers want to efficiently generate a maximum yield
(crop yield) from a land area
▪ From the product to the process
New ways to increase efficiency:
▪ Smart solutions
▪ Automation
o Less staff and manual activities
▪ Optimization
o Reduce resource use
Claas Digital Farming
New Premises - New Ways

Page 26 of 64
Increased efficiency through digitization
▪ Optimal use of earning potential
▪ Save fertilizer, additives, pesticides
▪ Avoid storage costs
▪ Balanced nitrogen balance
▪ Optimized nitrogen uptake
New crop: DATA
▪ Electronics, software and telematics
▪ Sensors
▪ Software and networking
Cultivation of individual subsites
(„Precision Farming“)
▪ Consider differences in soil conditions
▪ Adapted fertilization and sowing
Annual report 2016:

Page 27 of 64
Example: sensors and measuring technology
▪ Measurement technology (sensors) record soil parameters
o Harvest quantity (for example, data collection in the
combine harvester)
o Example: LED based sensors, Stereoscopic cameras
(Herbicity application)
▪ Metrics:
o Bio-mass (density)
o N-index (vegetation index, nutrient supply)
▪ Combine harvester becomes the sensor:
o Example: Measuring crop yield together with item data
(Yield maps)
Digital Innovations, Farming 4.0

Page 28 of 64
Example: Digital soil maps
▪ Display in digital soil maps having different
layers
o Fertilization, sowing, plant protection,
contours, climate, ...
o Satellite data, weather data
▪ Soil data are the basis for subsequent
fertilization, sowing and the like

Page 29 of 64
Example: Automatic steering systems
▪ GPS-controlled lane control
▪ Automatic turning
▪ Various reference signals (accuracies)

Page 30 of 64
Resource perspective
Value creation
architecture
Differentiation
potential /
USP
Key resources /
Core competencies
Market access /
Market position
Cost effect Income effect
Market perspective
Digital Farming /
Precision Farming
Willingness to pay
among markets/
customers
Business Model Analysis
Uniqueness:
▪ Superior quality
(e.g. precision, time savings,
area of application)
▪ Simple and understandable
use of complex systems
▪ Superior services
Central value-added
partners:
▪ External software
developers
Key resources:
▪ Harvest management
▪ Fleet management
▪ Route planning
▪ Maintenance management
▪ Driver monitoring
Core competencies:
▪ Deep understanding of
customer needs
▪ System networking
▪ Data management
Target group:
▪ Farmers
▪ Industrial agriculture
Customer Relationship:
▪ Online Services
▪ Service agreements
▪ Maintenance
Distribution channels:
▪ Sales partner

Page 31 of 64
Patents and IP-Strategy
Starting point portfolio analysis:
▪ Does the IP portfolio fit in terms of:
o Own product segments?
o Competitors?
o Future trends?
▪ Does the portfolio fit with the business model?
▪ Activities:
o Comparison with portfolios of competitors
o Analysis of the age of patents / applications
o Analysis of application dynamics (t)
▪ Aim:
o Recognize risks
o Identify opportunities
▪ Good starting point for
IP strategy development
Example Portfolio
Analysis
„Farm Management“
(2009)
Patent Application
Activities
Competitor Analysis

Page 32 of 64
Patenting of digital Inventions
Which aspects are eligible for patenting?
1. Data model (kind of mapping of reality)
▪ Example: Digital Soil Maps?
2. Optimization / preference structure
▪ Example: Optimization of yield based on stock
density and N indices?
3. Sensor technology (data acquisition)
▪ Example: LED sensors, cameras?
4. Control by means of data
▪ Example: ISARIA (system for dosing nitrogen
fertilizer)?
Also: General topic: "Patentability of software" (especially
the question of the technical nature of software)

Page 33 of 64
Taxonomy
Data model
(describes the data and their relationships)
Input Output
Logic Control
(Parameterization and weighting)
Procedure
(classic algorithms and heuristics)
Preference models
Configuration Simulation Optimization
Display
Trigger
Products
Overall processes
Components
Process steps
Measure
Readout
Enter
Products
Overall processes
Components
Process steps
Products
Overall processes
Components
Process steps
Adaptation
Redesign
e.g. Reporting
e.g. Decision
template
e.g. Set of
control commands
EP1633105
US7873617
EP2197171
EP3229200
EP2401904
EP2401905
US9483804
EP3053428
EP3257346

Page 34 of 64
IP Situation today
▪ IP activities have the protection of
the business model in mind
▪ New understanding and role of IP
in the company:
o So far: Reactive patenting
of R & D results
o Today: Active generation of
strong IP-based exclusivity along
the business model
▪ More patents:
o 231 patent applications in 2017
o 3,751 active patents
Total inventory of patents
and patent applications

Page 35 of 64
CLAAS is a model example of digitization in
agriculture
▪ From traditional machine builders to digital
business models
▪ "Digital Agenda": telematics, software and
electronic platforms
▪ Platform "365FarmNet"
IP plays a central role:
▪ Exclusivity regarding new digital solutions
▪ Securing new business models (risks)
▪ Skimming customers' willingness to pay
exclusively (premium prices)
CLAAS success speaks for itself:
▪ New development center for electronics /
software / telematics
▪ 2017: Innovation Award from the DLG (German
Agricultural Society)
Conclusion

Page 36 of 64
Link to the introduction movie

Page 37 of 64
Case Study Rittal
Smart Engineering by Digital Twins
Digital
transformation
(Industrie 4.0)
New Business Models
▪ Cloud services
▪ Advanced consulting
Digitization and integration
of value chains
▪ From the Top Floor to the Shop
Floor
▪ From the configurator / online-
shop to production
Prerequisites
▪ Uniform data classification
▪ Defined interfaces
Digitization of the product
and service offer
▪ CAD-data
▪ ETIM / eCl@ss
The challenge:
Industrie 4.0 – Digitization in the control and switchgear construction

Page 38 of 64
Case Study Rittal
The complexity in the enterprise environment rises due to…
Market
different requirements by
industry and market region
increasing variations with
decreasing prices
single orders and short
delivery times
Controlcabinet
manufacturer
increasing individuality and
decreasing lot size
(lot size 1 is reality)
high complexity in terms of
data and methods
system breaks in the
engineering and production
process
Short delivery time Customer decision
Delivery time actual
Target: < x weeks
Delivery time
Decision Delivery date
Product
complexity
Lot size
Engineering Production

Page 39 of 64
Case Study Rittal
Rittal GmbH & Co. KG
▪ The world's leading system supplier for control cabinets, power
distribution, air conditioning, IT infrastructure, software and services
▪ Headquarters: Herborn (Hesse)
▪ Central company within the Friedhelm-Loh-Group
▪ Employees: approx. 11,500;
Group sales: about 2.2 billion euros
Detail of Rittal’s product range
Sister companies F.L.G.

Page 40 of 64
Case Study Rittal
Value chain in control cabinet construction:
▪ Engineering
▪ production
▪ Control cabinet construction / assembly
▪ Services

Page 41 of 64
Case Study Rittal
Data generation and information flow along the value creation process:
From control cabinet engineering to arrangement
Along the value-added process, the
control cabinet-individual data
volume increases sharply
Backup / provision of
generated / required
cabinet individual data in the cloud
(Digital Twin)

Page 42 of 64
Case Study Rittal
Activities

Page 43 of 64
Case Study Rittal
Examples of patent types in cyber-physical systems using the cabinet product life cycle as an example
Patent type Technical problem Solution Document nuber
* PT I
Data sets with a fixed structure are not
suitable for querying product lists.
Division of the data record into variable fields, to which a main field is the
parent.
DE10001613
** PT II
Configuration of more complex technical
products (many variations / adapt to each
other)
Configuration system that selects and configures individual components
based on dimensioning and operating parameters. A subsequent redesign
with changed dimensioning and working parameters is possible. All
parameters and properties are stored in a database.
EP1251444
*** PT III
Adaptation of the electr. or mech. Model
to the HVAC requirements often requires a
redesign of the electrical panel
Based on the specifications and the arrangement of the components, an
ideal configuration based on rule sets is selected
DE102011117679
*
**
***

Page 44 of 64
Case Study Rittal
PT III
DE102011117679
PT II
EP1251444
PT I
DE10001613
Fig: Location of patent types in the taxonomy of the principles of invention
Location of patent types in the taxonomy of the principles of invention by way of example:

Page 45 of 64
Goal of an IP Strategy:
Creating Added Value Positions with the Customer
Sphere of exclusivity
Willingness
to pay among
markets /
customers
Customer
benefit offered
by the
competition
Competitors can
no longer place
their offer on the
market.
The customer
exclusively uses
your offer.
Strategic prohibition
creates exclusive
market positions for you.
▪ Based on a distinctive customer benefit
▪ Long lasting
▪ Defensible (also legally)
Your offer
Customer benefit

Page 46 of 64
▪ Purpose
Why an IP strategy?
▪ To secure exclusive added value
▪ To secure customer benefits
▪ Characteristics
What characterizes a differentiation IP strategy?

Page 47 of 64
Effective IP Strategies
focus on Customer benefit
„Waiting for inventions“ IP is designed as a part of the marketing strategy
Patented functions Exklusive customer benefit
Customer
benefit
Customer /
market
Competition

Page 48 of 64
Customer focused IP is not initiated
by Invention Disclosures
The classic route New mindset
From invention to patent From Desired Exclusivity to Patent
PREVIOUSLY:
Invention
as input
Sphere of
exclusiveness for
customer benefit
NEW: Exclusive
customer benefit
as input
Innovation
The economic goal defines the need for prohibitive rights

Page 49 of 64
IP-Design includes Market Intelligence
1. Risk minimization
>> IP <<
2. Suppression of
imitation
>> IP and R&D <<
3. Strategic prohibition
>> Marketing and Product
Management <<
Economic approach: Cost
avoidance
Economic approach:
Increase of market share
Elements of IP Design:
• Integration of market intelligence
• IP design from a customer perspective
• Thinking in exclusivity and prohibition
• Multidisciplinary teams
• IP is more than just patents
Economic approach:
Premium prices
IP R&D
IP
IP PMMR&D

Page 50 of 64
▪ Purpose
Why an IP strategy?
▪ Characteristics
▪ Customer benefit as an input variable
▪ Integration of market intelligence
▪ Synthetic inventing as required
▪ Approach for implementation

Page 51 of 64
Methodological basis
Two Implementation Steps
Inform / Anticipate Generate
▪ Interviews and research related to the framework data of
the IP strategy (mega trends, brand promises, market
claims, corporate challenges)
▪ Creation of a business model analysis
▪ Derivation of exclusivity goals and mapping of the technical
realization of the customer benefit in the IP-FD*
▪ Identification of the system components and patent
literature search
▪ Development of a 360° IP strategy including the following
topics: risk management, suppression of imitation, designing
a market position and communicating USPs
▪ Identification of relevant fields of action
▪ Selection of the field of action with the highest
differentiation potential based on IP (decision model)
▪ Development of invention environments in one or more
selected fields of action
▪ Derivation of invention cores from the Invention
environment
▪ Patent literature search related to the known and free
solution space
▪ Selection of invention cores and creation of draft
inventions
▪ Discussion with the patent attorney
▪ Support of the technology department and the patent
attorney in drafting the patent application
*IP-FD - Intellectual Property Function Deployment: Correlation of customer benefit and realization (based on QFD)
Fulfilling IP needsDefining IP needs
IP-Design

Page 52 of 64
Methodological Basis
Analysis of the Field of Action
Results
Methodology
▪ Analysis of the field of action from the
customer benefit perspective
▪ Identification of the added value position
coverable by means of IP: “Where would we
like to be exclusive?”
▪ Definition of KPIs along which financial
results can be improved by means of IP
▪ Interviews with the stakeholders of the
innovation project in Sales, Marketing,
Product Management and R&D
▪ Holding of workshops for defining the
business case and defining the customer
benefits
▪ Projection of the desired exclusivity onto the
actual situation of the company (resources
and value creation) and description of
possible IP strategies and instruments
The business model analysis for the innovations in question
includes the potentials of using IP
Project example

Page 53 of 64
IP Strategy Concept Design from a Market Perspective
3 2
2 3
3 2
2 3
3 3
3 2
3 1
Competitor3
Competitor4
◄PriorityCB
◄Relevancyfor
Pricing
Market competitor
Company
Competitor1
Competitor2
Customerbenefit
Ergonomics
Individualization
High image quality
Dynamic range
Good color reproduction
Robustness
Reliability
Results
Methodology
▪ The perception of a company's own brand
and the importance of the value proposition
for designing the desired exclusivity
▪ Communicative USP compared to the market
presence of relevant competitors
▪ Requirements for marketing strategy from an
IP perspective, positioning of arguments
▪ Analysis of product-related market
communication (claims analysis) compared to
the competition
▪ Brand tonality analysis
▪ Alignment of brand personality, market
positioning and KPIs
Project example
Coverage by
competitors
KPIs and brand
promises are aligned
Customer
benefits
A comparison between the own customer
benefits with the relevant competitors’ market
claims shows the degree of attainable uniqueness

Page 54 of 64
Conception of IP Strategy from a Resource Perspective
Results
Methodology
Technical perspective
Market
perspectiveThe IP-FD (Intellectual Property
Function Deployment) integrates the
market and technology perspectives.
... and from a resource perspective
▪ Evaluation of patent activities of the value
components and resources relevant for
designing the customer benefit
▪ Derivation and prioritization of the most
important fields of action for the IP design
▪ Interviews for the identification, description
and allocation of system components
(technical perspective)
▪ Workshop for evaluating and prioritizing
customer benefits and realization
components and for assessing search fields
▪ Investigation of the coverage of individual
search fields by patents of market and
structural competitors
▪ Representation within a transparent
structure which is easy to adapt to changing
environmental conditions
Project example

Page 55 of 64
IP-Design – Generating synthetic Inventions
Results
Methodology
▪ Design of effective IP based on customer
focused (synthetic) inventions in the defined
field of action
▪ Invention sketch as an input for the patent
application set up by the patent attorney
▪ After submission of the application or
examination by the patent office: Evaluation
of the patent application with regard to the
strategic targets
▪ Description of the invention environments in
the field of action and derivation of possible
nuclei of invention
▪ Identification of comparable or interfering
solutions in patent literature
▪ Description of the technical problem, the free
solution space and the object of the invention
in an invention sketch
Invention environments and invention cores derived from them cover the technical
realizations that are required for the provision of customer benefits
The usage scenario concretises the
customer usage in the application
Technical challenges arise from
the usage scenario and the
performance promise
The comparison with the state of the
art reveals the possibility of developing
prohibitive rights

Page 56 of 64
▪ Purpose
Why an IP strategy?
▪ Characteristics
▪ Customer benefit as an input variable
▪ Integration of market intelligence
▪ Synthetic inventing as required
▪ Approach
Which approaches are used?
▪ A systematic and tool-based approach
▪ IP design through integration of the market and resource perspective
▪ Summary

Page 57 of 64
Interdependency of Industry Position,
Business Model, IP Strategy and Organization
Choice
Consequence
Result
Strategy Structure
FIT

Page 58 of 64
Success Factors of IP Strategy in
Differentiation Centers

Page 59 of 64
Success Factors of IP Strategy in
Differentiation Centers
▪ Objective: exclusive market position
In order to secure a defensible USP for the perceived customer benefit, competitors are prevented from
exploiting the relevant technological aspects by means of prohibitive rights.
▪ Measurable business success
Criteria for success are not (just) of a technical or legal but, to a great extent, also of a business-related
nature, e.g. achieving a higher market price or increasing market share.
▪ Involvement of market intelligence
Unlike conventional approaches to Product Management, Marketing and Sales are taken into account when
designing prohibitive rights.
▪ Active “IP design”
A technical solution is not yet required at the patent application stage in order for prohibitive rights to be
effective.
The starting point is rather the customer benefit to be achieved, which, in turn, serves as an input for
development.
▪ Efficient, tool-based approach
Our approach has been tried and tested in companies operating in a variety of innovative and competitive
environments – from modular construction (Goldbeck) to electrical devices (Vorwerk).

Page 60 of 64
Upcoming Event

Page 61 of 64
Upcoming Event

Page 62 of 64
Further Reading
Follow us on:
http://ipforbusiness.org/

Page 63 of 64
Further Reading
http://www.i3pm.org/case-studies-miplm.html

Page 64 of 64
STEINBEIS-TRANSFER-INSTITUTE
Intellectual Property Management
Director: Prof. Dr. Alexander J. Wurzer
Thalkirchner Str. 2
D - 80337 Munich
Phone: +49 (0)89 / 74 63 92 16
Fax: +49 (0)89 / 72 44 909 61
E-Mail: alexander.wurzer@sti-ipm.de
Internet: www.sti-ipm.de

CEIPI summer school on IP in Europe 2018 - Presentation IP Strategies in Europe

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie CEIPI summer school on IP in Europe 2018 - Presentation IP Strategies in Europe

Ähnlich wie CEIPI summer school on IP in Europe 2018 - Presentation IP Strategies in Europe (20)

Mehr von MIPLM

Mehr von MIPLM (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (18)

CEIPI summer school on IP in Europe 2018 - Presentation IP Strategies in Europe