IP: Understanding and tracking your IP assets
An IP audit can collect and analyze information about existing and potential assets so informed and strategic decisions can be made regarding protection.
February 04, 2014 at 03:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Unfortunately, it is very common for most intellectual property owners, no matter what their size, to take a haphazard approach to managing IP assets. As a result, the decision whether or not to seek protection for an asset is often an afterthought and may even happen after the product development cycle is well underway. Another risk is that the IP asset will not be assessed as part of a larger strategy, but instead protected out of a vague sense that it is valuable.
A more logical approach is to conduct an IP audit to collect and analyze information about existing and potential assets so informed and strategic decisions can be made regarding protection. A complete and thorough audit will identify all assets that are subject to legal protection. Also included are the details on any issued patents, registered trademarks, any copyrights and any trade secrets. The audit should also include such things as pending patent and trademark applications, foreign IP assets, confidentiality agreements, and employee non-compete agreements.
Once an audit is complete, the information should be organized and maintained in a format that allows the owner to easily reference and understand what they own. For example, spreadsheets that show the status and inter-relationships of patents and pending applications should be used. The claim language of the patent claims should also be included to allow personnel in the company to be aware of what the company's patents actually cover. A comprehensive patent spreadsheet with claims allows the owner to monitor their patent portfolio and be aware of any gaps that they may have in their patent protection. Also, the portfolio should be monitored not just by company management but also engineers, R&D staff, and sales and marketing staff as well. Often sales personnel will be the first to become aware of infringing activities by competitors so it pays to have them aware of what is protected.
One word of caution: The owner should not attempt to define or explain the claim language of a patent in the document. The claim language should stand on its own. If an informal or short hand definition is made, this may be a limiting admission if the patent is ever the subject of litigation.
The spreadsheet may include an informal characterization of each of the patent as to whether it is offensive or defensive in nature. Broad-based, aggressive, and offensive types of patents typically come into play if an owner is looking towards enforcement to shut down competitors and/or licensing agreements to generate revenue. In contrast, defensive patents are narrower in scope and may be aimed at trying to protect existing or anticipated product lines. These patents are typically used if the owner's industry involves fields that are very crowded with competitors who also have significant patent portfolios. Therefore, the owner is probably not going to be as aggressive in asserting the application against a potential infringer. Additionally, a defensive patent is often used by a smaller start up venture with the intention of being acquired at some point. Defensive patents will add to the potential value of the company at acquisition time.
Once an IP spreadsheet is created, regular meetings should be scheduled to update the portfolio information, review the status of pending matters, identify any holes in protection, review new assets, and plan future actions. If such a spreadsheet is successfully created and maintained, an owner will be able to not only keep track of what is protected but also truly understand the scope of that protection.
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
- 1ZwillGen Acquires Lawyers, Scientists and Technology from Luminos.Law, Developer of Luminos.AI Platform
- 2Clifford Chance Strengthens Private Credit Offering With Mayer Brown Partners
- 3MoFo Launches in Amsterdam
- 4The Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes
- 5People in the News—Jan. 8, 2025—Stevens & Lee, Ogletree Deakins
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