TL;DR: In this paper, an Intellectual Property Title Certificate (IPC) is issued as verification or confirmation of the chain of title of an intellectual property asset, which is useful in transactions involving the buying, selling, transferring, valuation, borrowing against or securing credit with intellectual property assets.
Abstract: Intellectual property asset title insurance and systems for providing title insurance for intellectual property assets are disclosed. A chain of title is determined for an intellectual property asset. An intellectual property title certificate is issued as verification or confirmation of the chain of title of the intellectual property asset. The invention is useful in transactions involving the buying, selling, transferring, valuation, borrowing against or securing credit with intellectual property assets. The intellectual property title certificate may be in paper or electronic form. A party involved in a transaction takes out an intellectual property title insurance policy prior to receiving the certificate. In some cases, for example, where the absolute chain is not determinable, the title certificate may reflect appropriate riders and exclusions, endorsements, conditions and gap coverage. Letter reports can supplement the actual title certificate and provide additional relevant information to the intellectual property asset. The invention is part of an overall transaction assurances solution, which may be conducted on the internet with a website providing intellectual title insurance services or other intellectual property asset insurance. The policy costs may be determined by valuation of the intellectual property asset, risk of the chain of title history, and how long a chain of history there is to be verified.
TL;DR: In the landmark case of Mabo v Queensland1, which awarded a group of indigenous people land rights to a small group of islands based on "native title", the only judge to even consider the issue of possessory title was Justice Toohey as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: To the present day, no court in Australia has decided a case of possessory title being claimed by Aboriginal claimants. In the landmark case of Mabo v Queensland1, which awarded a group of indigenous people land rights to a small group of islands based on "native title", the only judge to even consider the issue of possessory title was Justice Toohey. However, as the following discussion will show, this lack of judicial consideration does not mean that possessory title may not be a useful and perhaps even favourable course of action for a group of Aboriginal claimants to follow. Possessory title is an old Common Law doctrine which states that the possession of land gives rights to a title which is good against the rest of the world except for a person with a better claim. The occupier of the land is feudally possessed or seised of the land and acquires a fee simple title. The common law presumes this interest in the land, and it will be effective against the world until it is rebutted by someone contending that they have better title. In light of this definition it can be seen that possessory title is based on two main elements. Firstly, the claimant must show that they have possession of the land in question. Secondly, there must not be a party present who can prove they have an existing and better title to the land.
TL;DR: In this article, a transaction cost theory of 'title insurance' and its role in countries with recording and registration of land titles is discussed. But the role of title insurance is not discussed.
Abstract: This article outlines a transaction cost theory of 'title insurance' and analyses the role it plays in countries with recording and registration of land titles. Title insurance indemnifies real estate right holders for losses caused by pre-existing title defects that are unknown when the policy is issued. It emerged to complement the 'errors and omissions' insurance of professionals examining title quality. Poor organization of public records led title insurers in the USA to integrate title examination and settlement services. Their residual claimant status motivates insurers to screen, cure and avoid title defects. Firms introducing title insurance abroad produce little information on title quality, however. Their policies are instead issued on a casualty basis, complementing and enforcing the professional liability of conveyancers. Future development in markets with land registration is uncertain because of adverse selection, competitive reactions from established conveyancers and the ability of larger banks to self-insure title risks.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors outline a transaction cost theory of "title insurance" and analyze the role it plays in countries with recording and registration of land titles and present the role of title insurance in real estate right holders for losses caused by pre-existing title defects.
Abstract: This article outlines a transaction cost theory of ‘title insurance’ and analyses the role it plays in countries with recording and registration of land titles Title insurance indemnifies real estate right holders for losses caused by pre-existing title defects that are unknown when the policy is issued It emerged to complement the ‘errors and omissions’ insurance of professionals examining title quality Poor organization of public records led title insurers in the USA to integrate title examination and settlement services Their residual claimant status motivates insurers to screen, cure and avoid title defects Firms introducing title insurance abroad produce little information on title quality, however Their policies are instead issued on a casualty basis, complementing and enforcing the professional liability of conveyancers Future development in markets with land registration is uncertain because of adverse selection, competitive reactions from established conveyancers and the ability of larger banks to self-insure title risks