Autonomous Transportation Startups Should Avoid These Top Mistakes
Startup companies are well positioned to address some of the problems in the industry but should be careful to avoid the following potholes.
May 22, 2019 at 02:37 PM
5 minute read
Autonomous transportation technology development is accelerating rapidly and advances in object identification, mapping, machine learning, sensing and communication will continue for years as startups and OEMs work to make autonomous transportation a reality.
Startup companies are well positioned to address some of the problems in the industry but should be careful to avoid the following potholes.
1. Coming Up with Cool Technology But Not Thinking Through the Market
Some autonomous technology startups have strong technology that the founders want to develop. Startups can make the mistake of developing cool technology before figuring out how it can be used in the market. An example may be a robotics company that decides that it has a cool way of autonomously moving in any direction. The passion and development of this interesting technology may come before identifying the problem to be solved and the scope and feasibility of the market. This results in innovative technology that may not have a strong enough addressable market to warrant further investment.
TIP: Identify gaps in the market where a real need exists and then develop solutions and technology to address the gaps. These gaps can be identified by talking with potential customers to identify their pain points.
2. Announcing Your IP Too Soon
Innovative companies are understandably eager to publicly announce their ideas. However, without proper advanced planning, a public announcement may adversely affect the ability to secure intellectual property rights. For example, public disclosure of confidential information may result in a loss of trade secret rights. In addition, public disclosure of inventions may immediately result in a loss of patent rights outside the U.S. and can also potentially compromise U.S. patent rights.
TIP: Develop a marketing plan and coordinate public disclosures with your attorney to determine the impact that the disclosure may have on your ability to protect your intellectual property. This coordination allows intellectual property rights to be secured prior to a public disclosure.
3. Assuming You Own an Idea
People frequently presume that coming up with an idea equates to owning it. This mistake, although unintended, can be very costly for a startup. If the idea was originated or worked on while working at a prior employer, the prior employer could potentially assert rights to the intellectual property. Such a claim could originate from seemingly harmless activities such as use of an employer's copier or network; it may also occur from using an employer's computer to access a personal email account. During diligence for a potential investment, this can result in the investor walking away because of the risk that you don't own core technology.
TIP: Do not use your employer's resources when working on your new idea. It is best to work on such ideas off hours, at your home, and on your own resources, e.g., computer, phone, copier, etc. Also, if the new endeavor does not relate to the scope of your responsibilities at your current employer, such risks are further reduced. If you think your idea may relate to the scope of your responsibilities at your current employer, you may need to stop working for the employer to minimize the chance of contaminating the intellectual property.
4. Having a Very Limited IP Strategy
Startups wanting to protect their inventions may be drawn to protecting the interesting technology that took significant effort to develop. While wanting to protect the inventions that were difficult to develop is common, there are many situations where the technologically difficult solutions are poor patent application candidates. For example, there may be many ways to solve the same problem, it may be difficult to detect infringement, or the shelf life of the solution may be only a couple of years given the rapid pace of changes in the technology.
TIP: Startups should identify solutions that can effectively block competitors. This can be done by examining how competitors may try to solve the problems that you are addressing in the market and identify bottlenecks where, if you can obtain patent protection covering the few effective solutions, you can effectively block competitors from implementing those solutions.
5. Limiting Your Patent Flexibility
A related problem is that startups focus the description in their patent applications only on their current implementation which limits flexibility during patent prosecution that occurs years after filing. Technology and solutions change and preparing a patent application that only covers the current solution, in particular where you are continuing to develop the technology, may lead to a patent application that is not relevant in a few years.
TIP: Startups should put themselves in their competitor's shoes and strategize about how the competitor can design around your patent after issuance. Then you can include those design-arounds in your patent application. For example, startups should imagine different ways to approach and solve the problems that their inventions address and include descriptions of such alternate approaches in the patent application. The additional material provides support for alternate prosecution tactics several years after filing and may also describe the evolved product/service which allows the patent claims to cover the evolved solution.
John McNelis is the co-chair of Fenwick & West's Autonomous Transportation and Shared Mobility Practice and is the Chair of the California Technology Council's Autonomous Vehicles Group.
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 Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readPatreon Hit With Lawsuit for Allegedly Diverting Subscriber Data to Meta
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
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