IP: Learn to craft a strategic intellectual property policy for a bioscience company
A strategic intellectual property policy is a coordinated approach to the identification, creation and enforcement of intellectual property.
November 20, 2012 at 06:06 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A strategic intellectual property policy is a coordinated approach to the identification, creation and enforcement of intellectual property (IP). Consideration is sometimes not given to why IP should be protected or enforced from the perspective of what the company expects to derive from the IP. This can result in a ballooning IP budget with frightfully little to show for it when needless patent applications are filed or litigation is pursued for IP rights that are not aligned with the business interests of the company.
Companies that derive the most from their IP budget actively manage the entire process of identifying, protecting, and monetizing the IP, keeping in mind the strategic goals of the company and focusing efforts and funds on the IP resources that will help the company achieve those goals. This is especially necessary for bioscience companies, where lengthy development periods can generate much IP with little immediate returns.
The strategic planning for a bioscience company is frequently housed within the business plan, strategic statement, five-year plan, or other source for strategic thinking and direction. The best source for the company's strategic thinking, of course, is direct communication between management and those responsible for the IP. Communication is at the heart of the process, and those responsible for the IP must be keenly aware of the strategic vision of those responsible for leading the business. Changes in strategic direction can be frequent, especially given the rapid pace of bioscience technology developments, and such changes must be communicated to the IP personnel so that IP decisions accurately reflect current management thinking.
The IP of the business should be routinely measured, compared and tested against the strategic goals of the company. Deciding and prioritizing between various alternatives and possibilities can mean the difference between success and failure. By treating IP as a flexible asset that can be manipulated to more properly fit the strategic objectives of the business, a significant tool can be used to advance the business and in some cases to create an intellectual property road blocks for the company's competitors.
A SWOT analysis is a common management tool in which the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats—SWOT—of a business or project are identified and examined. The technique can be applied to IP with the business strategy set as the backdrop. That is, strengths are measured in relation to the strategic goals of the company, and weaknesses are measured the same way. Opportunities presented by the IP and threats to the IP are measured only insofar as they relate to the strategic focus of the company. In other words, a licensing opportunity outside the goals of the company is less valuable than one that advances the company's long-term objectives. The fact that such outside opportunities might have significant revenue generating possibilities can be reviewed elsewhere, but for purposes of testing the strategic value and sufficiency of the IP, the strategic goals of the company are the key yardstick.
While some might argue the case for stockpiling IP no matter its current value in case the bioscience company has a later need, this can result in a squandering of resources that can be better deployed elsewhere by almost any business, large or small. Almost every business needs to make financial choices as to which IP will be pursued, or pursued aggressively with litigation and the like, and which IP will not. The careful alignment of such pursuits with the strategic objectives of the business will insure that the IP assets of a bioscience business are deployed to maximum benefit.
A strategic intellectual property policy is a coordinated approach to the identification, creation and enforcement of intellectual property (IP). Consideration is sometimes not given to why IP should be protected or enforced from the perspective of what the company expects to derive from the IP. This can result in a ballooning IP budget with frightfully little to show for it when needless patent applications are filed or litigation is pursued for IP rights that are not aligned with the business interests of the company.
Companies that derive the most from their IP budget actively manage the entire process of identifying, protecting, and monetizing the IP, keeping in mind the strategic goals of the company and focusing efforts and funds on the IP resources that will help the company achieve those goals. This is especially necessary for bioscience companies, where lengthy development periods can generate much IP with little immediate returns.
The strategic planning for a bioscience company is frequently housed within the business plan, strategic statement, five-year plan, or other source for strategic thinking and direction. The best source for the company's strategic thinking, of course, is direct communication between management and those responsible for the IP. Communication is at the heart of the process, and those responsible for the IP must be keenly aware of the strategic vision of those responsible for leading the business. Changes in strategic direction can be frequent, especially given the rapid pace of bioscience technology developments, and such changes must be communicated to the IP personnel so that IP decisions accurately reflect current management thinking.
The IP of the business should be routinely measured, compared and tested against the strategic goals of the company. Deciding and prioritizing between various alternatives and possibilities can mean the difference between success and failure. By treating IP as a flexible asset that can be manipulated to more properly fit the strategic objectives of the business, a significant tool can be used to advance the business and in some cases to create an intellectual property road blocks for the company's competitors.
A SWOT analysis is a common management tool in which the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats—SWOT—of a business or project are identified and examined. The technique can be applied to IP with the business strategy set as the backdrop. That is, strengths are measured in relation to the strategic goals of the company, and weaknesses are measured the same way. Opportunities presented by the IP and threats to the IP are measured only insofar as they relate to the strategic focus of the company. In other words, a licensing opportunity outside the goals of the company is less valuable than one that advances the company's long-term objectives. The fact that such outside opportunities might have significant revenue generating possibilities can be reviewed elsewhere, but for purposes of testing the strategic value and sufficiency of the IP, the strategic goals of the company are the key yardstick.
While some might argue the case for stockpiling IP no matter its current value in case the bioscience company has a later need, this can result in a squandering of resources that can be better deployed elsewhere by almost any business, large or small. Almost every business needs to make financial choices as to which IP will be pursued, or pursued aggressively with litigation and the like, and which IP will not. The careful alignment of such pursuits with the strategic objectives of the business will insure that the IP assets of a bioscience business are deployed to maximum benefit.
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 All'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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