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
© 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 AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending 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