Posted: March 9th, 2022

Securities and International Regulatory Agencies

Securities and International Regulatory Agencies

Why Bonner Owns the Invention
Based on the patent rights developed by engineers at Bonner, the company becomes the owner of this invention. According to Heinz (2007), a patent is meant to grant its owner a legal monopoly, although temporarily, in regards to several rights that are related to a specific invention, including rights such as receiving a profit from the invention. However, Heinz (2007) adds that this doesn’t mean that the inventor is always the patent owner. This clause, therefore, explains why, in this case, Bonner remains to be the owner of this invention.
The Intellectual Property Rights Owned By Bonner in This Invention
Karapapa and McDonagh (2019) define intellectual property rights to be the right that an individual or organization has to obtain the exclusive right of using its own. In this case, Bonner is the rightful owner of this new tractor invention, which has still not been released yet. This argument can be supported by the framework explaining how Bonner announced the company would release an innovative new tractor that has a technology based on a patented invention that has been developed by the company’s engineers. Additionally, Bonner’s vice president bought 100,000 shares of the company’s stocks before the release date of the new tractor invention. Given the fact that this tractor invention was Bonner’s product, the company’s vice president should be subjected to a dispute resolution with the company.
Another factor to consider is that Bonner’s invention is already protected by the patent. Given that, the federal statutes require that criminal penalties and civil damages should be assessed against patent infringers, as is the case with Bonner’s vice president (Karapapa & McDonagh, 2019). In this case, a new tractor invention can be described to be a result of Bonner’s creativity, which means that the company has the authority to apply for a trademark, copyright or patents for its new invention, wherein this case it represents a patent.
Dispute Resolution Method
The dispute resolution method that would be appropriate to resolve this case would be to use the WIPO dispute resolution technique. This method would be effective and appropriate to resolve this dispute since it also involves other issues such as mediation and arbitration methods, as well as expert determination and expedited arbitration (Gaitskell, 2011). Another factor to consider is the fact that the WIPO technique tends to be cost and time-efficient alternative of dispute resolution, which enables private parties to settle both domestic and international technology and IP disputes efficiently and out of court (Gaitskell, 2011). Moreover, Gaitskell (2011) adds that the WIPO dispute resolution technique allows for the dispute to be held anywhere globally since the WIPO is an abbreviation for the World Intellectual Property Organization. Given the fact that Bonner is involved with a dispute with a farm equipment company based in Germany, it would be advisable that this dispute resolution is held online. Holding this dispute resolution online would ensure that both companies save on travel costs and other inefficiencies that might arise. In contrast, the whole dispute resolution can be done online under the WIPO dispute resolution technique to avoid these costs and inefficiencies.

References
Gaitskell, R. (2011). International dispute resolution. Construction Dispute Resolution Handbook, 139-158. doi:10.1680/cdrh.41455.139
Heinz. (2007). Patent rights worldwide, patent applications: Prosecution, oppositions, priority rights. Polymers, Patents, Profits, 87-128. doi:10.1002/9783527610402.ch3
Karapapa, S., & McDonagh, L. (2019). 21. Dealings in intellectual property rights. Intellectual Property Law, 553-583. doi:10.1093/he/9780198747697.003.0021

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Securities and International Regulatory Agencies