Intelligently Managing Company Patent Spend
In the midst of remarkable technological advances, we are simultaneously enduring one of the most tumultuous global economies seen in several decades.
April 01, 2018 at 04:00 AM
4 minute read
The world has seen a startling increase in new technology in the past couple of decades. Inventions that would have been considered science fiction 20 years ago have drastically changed the way we function in almost every aspect of our daily lives. The filing of new patents across the globe has also advanced to an unprecedented number. In 2016 the number of new patents filed worldwide increased by 7.8% over comparable figures in 2015, according to figures provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization.
|Increasing Pressure on Patenting Budgets
In the midst of these remarkable technological advances, we are simultaneously enduring one of the most tumultuous global economies seen in several decades. Practically all industries have been adversely affected one way or another, which has required companies to take a closer look at how they spend money, and either make processes more efficient or initiate cost-saving cuts where appropriate.
At the same time, companies are pressured to continue to innovate. Georgetown Law's “2016 Report on the State of the Legal Market” reported that failure to innovate has caused many well-established companies to be blindsided by technological developments that oust them from their market leadership positions. Consequently, company IP leaders have been asked to protect innovations while simultaneously facing budget cuts that make their job difficult at best, and impossible at worst.
Patents are especially subject to budget pressures because they are intangible and commonly the most expensive intellectual property to acquire and maintain, especially for companies filing patent applications in non-U.S. jurisdictions.
|What Can Be Done
The considerable expense associated with patent procurement compels companies to seek alternative ways of mitigating patent expenses. Some common ways companies attempt to mitigate patent expenses include:
- Squeezing application preparation and prosecution pricing (both foreign and domestic).
- Forgoing foreign (and sometimes domestic) patent protection on otherwise valuable innovations.
- Filing patent applications in fewer foreign jurisdictions.
- Outsourcing original patent application drafting tasks to foreign countries, oftentimes in contravention to U.S. Export Administration regulations. For more information, see Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 142.
By employing such strategies, companies metaphorically take a hatchet to their patent budget without considering the deleterious effect on the resulting patent assets. While saving money in the short term, such hatchet-type strategies can lead to poorer asset quality, which further diminishes the company's ability to use patent assets to drive corporate opportunities.
Successful companies will approach patent spend management differently. Instead of using a hatchet approach, companies would do well to employ a scalpel that strategically and intelligently incorporates cost savings.
Part of an intelligent scalpel approach includes aligning patent and corporate strategies such that they mutually reinforce and support one another. To accomplish this, companies must embrace and utilize data-based objective analyses to align business goals with filing strategies and portfolio management decisions. This has the effect of optimizing the value of the patents procured while at the same time minimizing the costs involved. Companies should also integrate strategic business goal alignment algorithms, comprehensive competitor analytics, and patent strength analytics to build and justify a successful patenting strategy.
A successful company patent strategy should:
- Protect market potential and growth of the technology, including current and future research and development, product pipelines, and commercial efforts.
- Be based on filing, examination and maintenance strategies that capitalize on early indicators of patentability, jurisdictional realities, and company objectives.
- Address how patent assets can be leveraged through collaboration, external innovation, corporate opportunities, product exclusivity, and other monetization methods.
- Elevate the innovative culture of the company while simultaneously elevating the reputation of the company in the industry.
- Create blocks where competitors have (or will likely have) a footprint.
- Strategically abandon patents when business activities are no longer aligned with jurisdictional realities.
By approaching patenting in a smarter way, it is possible to lower costs of managing patent portfolios while simultaneously strengthening a company's patent position. Successful companies will embrace the ongoing innovation paradigm shift by thinking smarter to continue to build corporate patent assets that can be leveraged to drive innovation, collaboration and monetization opportunities. Doing so can potentially transform company patent departments into corporate asset centers, which provide benefits through leverage.
Carey Jordan and D. Jeremy Harrison are both partners in the Houston office of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease. Jordan is a patent veteran with nearly two decades of experience handling patent prosecution matters, patent challenges, litigation and intellectual property counseling. Harrison has also focused his practice on intellectual property matters for the past 10 years.
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 AllTexas' New Business Court: What We've Learned From Its First 2 Months
5 minute readDoes Videotaping a Supervised CPS Visitation Violate Privacy Rights?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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