IP Assets as Loan Collateral in the Time of COVID-19
In the face of a downswing economy and economic hardships as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses are now realizing the tangible value of their intangible intellectual property.
April 03, 2020 at 12:08 PM
4 minute read
In the face of a downswing economy and economic hardships as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses are now realizing the tangible value of their intangible intellectual property.
The trademarks, copyrights and patents registered by a business may indeed be among some of its most valuable corporate assets. The World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) has estimated that intangible assets now represent 80% of corporate value. Famous trademarks—like Google, Apple, Samsung and Amazon—are valued in the billions of dollars. Even current accountancy practice requires intellectual property to be listed on balance sheet at valuation. As one court put it, "theoretically and perhaps practically as well, this hard-earned [trademark] right is as important as money in the bank."
But, when forced between paying rent or maintenance fees to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), the question remains why businesses should renew their trademark registrations now.
One primary consideration, particularly for those companies seeking financing to cover cash flow shortfalls for operating expenses, is that these intellectual property assets can also serve as security for debt to access capital and to enhance credit. Lending institutions around the world are largely extending their business to offer loans on the basis of intellectual property. In cases where a borrower pledges its patents, trademarks or copyrights, both the collateral pool and the likelihood of a successful loan increase.
For example, in 2006, Ford Motor Co. pledged its famous Ford blue logo design, along with various other assets (which it reclaimed in 2012), as part of a financial bailout. Ford's chairman, William C. Ford Jr., was quoted in the New York Times: "Getting the blue oval back was both a relief and a validation of the comeback … We were pledging our heritage."
The main challenge in using intellectual property as collateral is risk. After applying for a loan, a borrower may be required to produce a detailed schedule of its intellectual property assets as part of the due diligence process. A prudent lender will likely also carry out an independent audit to verify the assets owned and/or licensed by the borrower and to mitigate risks. All relevant registrations will be evaluated to ensure that they are current and the borrower may remain responsible for maintaining the leveraged IP registrations. Trademarks and patent registrations will lapse permanently if not timely renewed. Similarly, a failure to defend valuable IP assets by taking legal action against infringers may lead to the same outcome.
Obtaining a security interest in any collateral is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which has been adopted with minor differences in all states and the District of Columbia. The security interest "attaches" to the pledged assets upon execution of a lending agreement between a creditor and a debtor, and the security interest must be "perfected" to grant the creditor priority over competing creditors concerning the same asset. The USPTO will also accept recordation of any instrument affecting title to a registered trademark. Such documents may be recorded "in the public interest in order to give third parties notification of equitable interest or other matters relevant to the ownership of the mark." Filing with the USPTO, however, does not preempt UCC filing requirements for the perfection of a security interest in a trademark, but it is a best practice for a lender to record a security interest with the USPTO in any registered trademark or pending trademark application. With respect to copyrights, Section 205 of the Copyright Act governs the recordation of transfers of copyright ownership and provides that any transfer of copyright ownership may be recorded in the Copyright Office. The Copyright Act defines a transfer of copyright ownership broadly as an "assignment, mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of a copyright."
Thus, even in times of economic uncertainty, maintenance of these corporate assets remains critical. When considering leveraging intellectual property assets as a source of financing and working capital, businesses should consult with a qualified and experienced IP attorney for guidance on issues related to registration and maintenance.
Jaime Vining is a partner at Friedland Vining in Miami. Contact her at [email protected].
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
© 2024 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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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