With regards to Bonner’s vice president’s purchase of corporation stock before the release of the new tractor, the corporation has both legal and ethical liability. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the term ‘insider’ has a broad application but significantly includes corporate officers, directors, and employees (SEC, 2013). Furthermore, illegal insider trading is the act of using non-public information, significant corporate developments yet to be made public, attracts both criminal and civil penalties. The legal viewpoint suggests that Bonner has a legal responsibility to report the vice president to the SEC based on his purchase of corporation stock and their being privy to such information by virtue of their position. Ethically, Bonner has a responsibility to disclose this information to its directors and the investing public as such acts violate that fundamental element of capital markets; clarity (SEC, 2013). Both legally and ethically, it is apparent that the vice-president sought to expand his market advantage by exploiting confidential information whereas clarity demands that such information is made available to all market contributors evenly.
While we acknowledge the receipt of your letter and more importantly, its contents, the Bonner Corporation created and patented the now contentious technology. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO, n.d), patents are granted by national or regional patent offices. The American equivalent of the former is the US Patent Office (USPTO) while the application process is based on the filing of an application that provides the above-mentioned office with the relevant technical information and necessary claims. Significantly, at the point of publicizing our new invention, the company was secure in its knowledge that it is patented. Therefore, while we acknowledge your communication and are handling the matter with the seriousness it merits, it is clear that Bonner, through the patent application process and the authority of USPTO is the owner of the now contentious technological invention.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As such, the company enjoys certain protections rights based on its patented technology. An example of the former includes stopping the commercial production, use, and distribution of the invention without Bonner’s consent. An example of the latter is the fact that Bonner corporation can decide who may or may not use the patented technology for the period of its protection (WIPO, n.d). This gives my corporation the capacity to either license the use of the invention or to sell said invention rights. Significantly, the American federal court system has jurisdiction over patent rights and can stop infringement even though the same court system can also declare patents invalid after successful third-party challenges (WIPO, n.d). Currently, Bonner has the right to exploit the commercial value of its invention and intends to do so to offset associated research and development costs.
While adopting this position, Bonner will remain committed and open to discussions aimed at generating mutually beneficial solutions. According to WIPO (2018), there are several dispute resolution mechanisms that our companies could exploit with a view to resolving this cross-border Intellectual Property dispute. Furthermore, while American courts are inclined to consider the reasoning of foreign courts on similar issues, they are by the decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the US Supreme Court. Therefore, filing a patent infringement dispute locally might not prove advantageous to your cause. It is our suggestion that both companies attempt WIPO mediation to resolve this dispute (WIPO, 2018). Seemingly, it is a process with a neutral intermediary who facilitates the arrival at a mutually satisfactory agreement of their dispute. Significantly, such an agreement is recorded as an enforceable contract. This mode of resolution can happen at a venue of your convenience.
References
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2013). Insider Trading Policy . Retrieved from https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/25743/000138713113000737/ex14_02.htm .
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (n.d). What is Intellectual Property? Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf .
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2018). Alternative Dispute Resolution . Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/ .
