IP: Planning and forecasting your intellectual property needs
Creating this atmosphere requires training of employees to explain patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, and the strengths and weaknesses of each.
January 21, 2014 at 03:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Almost all companies have a desire for more directed and strategic decision making about how to protect their intellectual property, especially with respect to patents due to their cost. In other words, companies are trying to decide which IP assets are going to be most important, which can do without protection, and which are going to turn out to be a business or technological dead end. These efforts are a clear result of the recession and current sluggish economic conditions and reflect an opportunity to re-evaluate legal budgets and obtain the most value from an investment in IP protection.
First and foremost, an IP management strategy should involve educating all company personnel. It is important to create an internal culture of awareness of the importance of the company's IP assets. This should involve everyone down to the front-line employees, including management, research and development staff, engineers, business people, and marketing and sales personnel.
Creating this atmosphere requires training of employees to explain patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, and the strengths and weaknesses of each. The goal is to try to instill the recognition that developing a new idea, solving a problem, or changing a process may create valuable IP that may require protection. Ideally, each employee should be encouraged to submit any new idea — perhaps through a simple written form or an email — to a designated person within the company. The idea would then be submitted to a review process to decide what kind of protection, if any, is needed. It is also important to ensure that employee agreements and policies include contractual obligations for employees to assign the rights to any inventions to the company. Also, employee non-compete agreements are important to help prevent key employees from leaving and providing competitors with important knowledge of a client's business information.
During a review of potential IP, it is important to always ask how the company will profit from the idea. For example, going forward with a patent application for an invention is ultimately both a business and a technical decision. The technical “gee whiz” factor may be there, but if the business case does not support it, then the concept is not worth patenting. Also, an invention may solve a technical problem but may not lead to an advantage in the marketplace over competitors and, as a result, might not be worth the expense. Likewise, if the business case supports trying to obtain patent protection but the legal merits are just not there — i.e., if a patent cannot successfully limit the competition — that might impact the ultimate business decision to go into a certain market. A company should also have a sense of the IP climate within their respective industry. How do competitors approach IP and how competitive is the industry? Is it a vicious free-for-all or more congenial?
An ideal IP strategy creates overlapping IP protection. For example, a company with a software patent application will almost certainly want to also apply for copyright registration for the software code. Additionally, trademark protection is a relatively inexpensive way of protecting the names of products that may be also be patented. Consideration should be given to trade secret protection as an alternative to patent protection. Patent and trade secret protection are usually mutually exclusive, but the decision on which type of protection to pursue may be delayed. For example, when a patent application is filed, the applicant may request non-publication of the application so that it is held confidential by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). If the applicant later decides to withdraw the application for whatever reason, the idea will still be protected as a trade secret since the application was never publically disclosed.
In summary, a company must develop a plan and strategy to protect their IP assets with business goals clearly in mind. The company also needs to constantly review and possibly adjust their strategy based on the marketplace, any changes in the law, and as other opportunities present themselves. A successful strategy is an ongoing and constant effort that will hopefully provide an intellectual property owner with a competitive advantage over their competitors in the marketplace.
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 AllWhite Castle GC Becomes Chain's First President From Outside Family
DLA Piper Adds Former Verizon GC Amid In-House Hiring Spree
Trending Stories
- 1How to Litigate Before the EU’s Top Court, the European Court of Justice
- 2After Solving Problems for Presidents, Ron Klain Now Applying Legal Prowess to Helping Airbnb Overturn NYC Ban
- 3Attorneys Allege Contract Broken For Sharing $13M In Fees From MDL
- 4ZwillGen Acquires Lawyers, Scientists and Technology from Luminos.Law, Developer of Luminos.AI Platform
- 5Clifford Chance Strengthens Private Credit Offering With Mayer Brown Partners
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