Parts Unknown: Global IP in an Increasingly Connected Yet Foreign World
A company's ability to compete and grow depends greatly on its ability to protect its intellectual property.
April 29, 2019 at 12:57 PM
5 minute read
The knowledge economy has given rise to a new landscape in which a company's intellectual assets, rather than physical assets, are its main source of wealth and competitive advantage. Today's nations and their companies increasingly compete for the right to innovate and present the next generation of drugs and technologies, such as the 5G wireless network. Against this backdrop, a company's ability to compete and grow depends greatly on its ability to protect its intellectual property (IP).
However, the ability to protect IP is increasingly challenged as companies reap the many benefits of globalization. In one sense, the world feels smaller and more connected because companies can tap vast supplies of talent, resources, and customers in markets all around the world. In another sense, this increased international interaction makes it glaringly obvious that the world is vast and unfamiliar, rendering companies vulnerable to conditions beyond their control such as government regulatory scrutiny, IP theft in foreign territories, shifting markets, competing political forces, and new cultural norms.
Last spring at IP Counsel Café's annual Palo Alto meeting, U.S. District Court Judge James Robart stated, “There is no area where nationalism takes more precedence than the pride in everybody's patent system.” Different countries are jockeying for top positions in IP filings, deeming this a proxy for being the most innovative. Similarly, countries are competing to be most favorable IP litigation jurisdictions to foster and attract innovation.
Export control is also increasingly targeting technology and data, the weapons of our times. Collaborating with inventors in different countries poses a host of patenting and export control challenges. Different countries have their own rules and nationalist policies that dictate an invention's country of origin and hinder the free movement of innovation across borders. These rules and policies often complicate the ways in which today's companies conduct business, including cross-border collaborations to innovate and introduce new products. In order to compete and grow, global companies must learn to navigate the multitude of legal differences among competing nations.
The borderless aspects of our modern economy, while rich in opportunities, also pose new risk. Partnering with manufacturers in other countries can reduce cost, but protecting against IP theft in unfamiliar territories is a constant challenge. While companies can obtain IP rights in these jurisdictions, their manufacturing partners can easily pack up and move their shops to other jurisdictions where IP rights have not been acquired.
Similarly, some countries have introduced economic development initiatives that place our IP at risk in unanticipated regions. For example, China has announced its Belt and Road Initiative, a development strategy involving infrastructure development and investments in 152 countries throughout Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. For companies that partner with Chinese manufacturers and have obtained IP protection in China, this initiative is a cause for concern. As their Chinese partners begin to spread to other regions, companies may need to obtain IP protection in these other regions as well.
Market volatility is yet another serious consideration. Today's tertiary markets can quickly become tomorrow's primary markets. Developments such as Brexit can change markets very swiftly. IP filings in Ireland have reportedly increased as the status of the U.K. is in doubt and American companies scramble for haven in other English-speaking countries. These potentially swift market changes cause companies to wonder if they should be filing in secondary and tertiary markets now, before they become primary markets.
IP protection in China is a clear example of the consequences of overlooking a changing market. For years, companies were advised against filing for protection in China where enforcement was deemed non-existent. The tides have turned; statistics show China is increasingly patent holder friendly, and litigation filings have increased. In 2017, there were 16,000 Chinese patent litigation filings versus 4,000 patent litigation filings in the U.S. Furthermore, portfolios lacking Chinese assets are now reportedly unattractive to portfolio buyers, yet obtaining new Chinese patent rights is often difficult because many technologies have already been patented. This teaches us that overlooking IP protection in once-thought secondary and tertiary markets can be damaging in the long run, but there is no crystal ball for forecasting how markets will shift.
Navigating the laws, policies, and shifting economic realities of different regions is further challenged by language barriers and cultural differences. One company reported that its South American outside counsel firm disappeared completely; their website vanished, and their lawyers stopped replying to emails. Some Asian law firms will nod in agreement when receiving instructions from American clients, but then proceed to perform the task their own way, ignoring those instructions. In our increasingly connected world, companies must find a way to conduct business despite these differences that can lead to misunderstanding or fraudulent behavior.
In order to survive, companies need to find trustworthy legal partners in different regions who understand the local laws, cultures, and economic climates; actively reevaluate their domestic and global IP strategies and filing decisions; and when possible, enter formal agreements in order to avoid the pitfalls of government regulations. While nations are vying for economic dominance, the reality is that today's companies operate on an increasingly global scale and collaborate with foreign partners. Their business prospects are brighter if they choose to build bridges and work together rather than fight among themselves.
Sandy Chan is executive director and general counsel of IP Counsel Café, a 3,000+ member organization that empowers the IP Counsel community by creating a safe place for knowledge and information sharing. The IP Counsel Café Annual Meeting in Silicon Valley will be held May 6-9 in Palo Alto. For more information, visit www.ipcounselcafe.com.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAI Disclosures Under the Spotlight: SEC Expectations for Year-End Filings
5 minute readA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Trending Stories
- 1Gibbons Reps Asylum Seekers in $6M Suit Over 2018 ‘Inhumane’ Immigration Policy
- 2DC Judge Chutkan Allows Jenner's $8M Unpaid Legal Fees Lawsuit to Proceed Against Sierra Leone
- 3Internal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
- 4In Resolved Lawsuit, Jim Walden Alleged 'Retaliatory' Silencing by X of His Personal Social Media Account
- 5Government Attorneys Face Reassignment, Rescinded Job Offers in First Days of Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250