• • describe, classify, organize and combine relevant legal and economic concepts, theories, methods and models;
• • identify, analyze and synthesize concrete problems within the subject matter of international intellectual property protection and economic theory by applying professional concepts, theories and models;
• • assess the economic model assumptions and their relation to real-life cases
• • analyze and evaluate intellectual property issues, arguing for different academic reasoned solutions and undertake critical consideration of the legal arguments and solutions
• • present solutions and arguments in a systematic and consistent manner, showing an overview, insight and understanding of relevant issues

The strategic use of intellectual property rights in an international competitive context is analyzed both from a legal and an economic perspective. Specific issueswill be studied and discussed. For example:
•Basic theories and principles of intellectual property; why and when it should be protected.
•Innovation and obtaining IPR protection inbiotechnology, in the telecom sector and in other industries.
• Patent Wars
• Development perspectives incopyright-basedindustriesin the light ofdigital technology.
•Open source.Open Content.Creative Commons.
• Trademarkseconomic functionand legalcontent.
• Contractualandcompetition law issuesintechnology transfer(license) agreements and in other collaborative agreements.
• Standardization, patent pools and joint R&D collaborations from a competition and intellectual property law perspective.
• What is FRAND?
 

Reading material (some changes and amendments to the list should be expected)
Jens Schovsbo and Morten Rosenmeier:Immaterialret, DJØF Forlag 2008. (or an equivalent book in English, e.g. Intellectual property law Bently, Lionel and Sherman, Brad, 3 ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)
Björn Lundqvist,  Standards in EU Competition Law and US Antitrust Law, forthcoming.
Arrow, Kenneth (1973). Information and Economic Behavior (Stockholm: Federation of Swedish Industries), s. 5-25.
Maskus, Keith E (2000). ”Globalization and the economics of intellectual property rights: dancing the dual distortion,” Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy (Washington, D.C., Institute for International Economics).
Greenhalgh, C. and Rogers, M. (2010). Innovation, Intellectual Property and Economic Growth (Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press, s. 149-73.
Are Stenvik: ”Protection for Equivalents Under Patent Law – Theories and Practice”, IIC 2001.1-20.
Formstein, Bundesgerichtshofs dom af 29.4.1986, IIC 1987.795-805.
Mazzoleni, Roberto and Nelson, Richard R. (1998). “Economic theories about the benefits and costs of patents,” Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 32, No. 4, December, s. 1031-1051.
Rivette, K.G. and Kline, D. (2000). Discovering new value in intellectual property, Harvard Business Review, January-February, s. 54-66.
Cusumano, Michael A. (2013). Technology strategy and management: The Apple-Samsung lawsuits. Communications of the ACM, January, 56 (1), s. 28-31.
Kur, Annette and Schovsbo, Jens, Expropriation or Fair Game for All? The Gradual Dismantling of the IP Exclusivity Paradigm (November 1, 2009). Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper No. 09-14.  
Shapiro, Carl (2001). “Navigating the patent thicket: Cross-licenses, patent pools, and standard setting,” Chapter 4 in Jaffe, A.B., Lerner, J. and Stern, S., eds., Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 1. January, s. 119-144.
Davis, Lee (2008): Licensing strategies of the new intellectual property vendors, California Management Review. Winter 2008 (February), pp. 6-26.
Lars Kjøelbye and Luc Peeperkorn: The New
Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation
and Guidelines s. 161 ff, in European competition law annual 2005, The interaction between competition law and intellectual property law
Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter; Atanasiu, Isabela;
Oxford;Hart Publishing ; 2007
Carlson, Steven, 'Patent Pools and the Antitrust Dilemma', (1999) 16 Yale Journal of Regulation 359.
Oxley, J.E. (1999). Institutional environment and the mechanism of governance: The impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of interfirm alliances, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 38(3): 283-307.
Sampson, R.C.  (2003). The role of lawyers in strategic alliances, Case Western Reserve Law Review 53(4): 909-924
Vonortas, N.S. (2000). Multimarket contact and interfirm cooperation in R&D, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10: 243-269.
Marcus Glader Open Standards: Public Policy Aspects and Competition Law Requirements, European Competition Journal, Volume 6, Number 3, December 2010, s 611 ff.
Dolmans, Maurits, 'Standards For Standards', (2002) 26 Fordham International Law Journal s. 163 ff..
Shapiro, Carl and Varian, Hal R. (1999). “Rights management,” Chapter 4 i Information Rules (Cambridge, Harvard Business School Press), s. 83-102.
Lerner, Josh and Tirole, Jean (2005). “The economics of technology sharing: Open source and beyond,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (2), spring, s.99-118.
WIPO Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks.
Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A. (1987). ”Trademark law: an economic perspective,” The Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 30, October, s. 265-280.
Ramello, Giovanni B. (2006). ”What’s in a sign? Trademark law and economic theory,” Journal of Economic Surveys, 20 (4), s. 547-61.
Lemley, Mark A. (1999). The modern Lanham Act and the death of common sense. Yale Law Journal, May, v 108. Reprint (11 sider).
Mulcahy, B.R. and Grubb, L. (2009). Bienvenu sur eBay – Online auctions for counterfeit luxury goods carry different risks in different jurisdictions (September 15). 4 sider
Case No. KZR 40/02 (“Tight-Head Drum” (Standard-Spundfass),
Cf. IIC 2005, 741.
Geradin, Damien, 'Standardization and Technological Innovation: Some Reflections on Ex-ante Licensing, FRAND, and the Proper Means to Reward Innovators', (2006) 29 World Competition 511.
Eisenberg, Rebecca S. (2001). ”Bargaining over the transfer of proprietary research tools: is this market failing or emerging?” in Dreyfuss, Rochelle C., Zimmerman, Diane L., and First, Harry, Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property (Oxford: Oxford University press), s. 223-249.
Walsh, John P., Arora, Ashish and Cohen, Wesley M. (2003) Research Tool Patenting and Licensing and Biomedical Innovation, in Cohen, W.M. and Merrill, eds., Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (Washington, D.C. National Academies Press), s. 285-336.
Heller, M. (2008). Gridlock Economy.  How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives (New York: Basic Books). s. xiii-xvii, 1-6.
EU Commission pharmaceutical sector inquiry, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/communication_en.pdf
Loozen, ” The workings of article 101 TFEU in case of an agreement that aims to limit parallel trade” ECLR 2010, 31(9), 349-353
Gervase, d.J. (2009). (Re)implementing the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to Foster Innovation,” The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 12 (5), 348-370.
“Prizes for technological innovation” (2006). The Brookings Institution, December, s. 1-7.
“The PC all over again?” (2012). The Economist, December 1st, s. 9.