IAM Top 300 IP Strategists for 2013 Released this Week: I am on the list for the 5th year in a row!

Please indulge me as I pat myself on the back– Largely as a result of the efforts that I have put into this blog over the last 5 + years and of the resulting recognition of my expertise by my peers, I have again been named to the Intellectual Asset Magazine Strategy 300.   This award acknowledges my expertise in IP Strategy and Intellectual Asset Management and is given only to those people who actively practice in areas related to capturing and leveraging business value from IP and intangible assets. Although I have been included on the list in each of the previous years of the award’s existence, inclusion on the list is particularly satisfying this year.  Specifically, the 2013 list was compiled from scratch as the result of substantive original research from the staff at IAM.  I did not pay to be included.  (More on the methodology here.)  Recognition like this makes all the hard work of keeping an active blog worth it.  I hope you will stay with me as I continue to share my strong opinions with you about IP and value creation throughout the next year. Tweet This Buzz This Delicious Digg This Reddit Stumble This

The Apple vs. Samsung Verdict Actually Demonstrates that Patents Do Promote Product Innovation

In the time that the Apple vs. Samsung patent fight has been underway, we have been inundated with an untold number of articles on how Apple is stifling innovation in the SmartPhone world.  (Haven’t seen these:  just do a Google search for “Apple stif . . .” you don’t have to type any more than this–the search auto-completes itself.) I often take a contrarian view from that stated by most “expert” commentators–be they members of the press or actual patent professionals, and the Apple v. Samsung verdict is no exception:  I think the result actually demonstrates that the patent system is working just fine in this instance, thank you very much.  But how can this be when Samsung got hit with more than a BILLION US DOLLAR jury verdict last week?!?  Doesn’t the fact that Samsung could not make a product without infringing Apple’s multitude of patents mean that Samsung is effectively prevented from competing with Apple in the Smartphone market? Not necessarily, as is shown by this great post from The Verge entitled:  “How Android has evolved while steering clear of Apple’s designs”.  What is most interesting to me about this article is how we see that while making Continue Reading →

How Patent Whitespace Analysis Can Set a Company Up for Sustainable Failure

I spent a few days last week at the Innovation Cubed Conference in Orlando.  While there, I heard two instances of use of a term that I absolutely hate, at least when it is used by innovation professionals to define in some manner the innovation processes of their respective organizations.   This word is: PATENT WHITESPACE ANALYSIS Not only do I hate this phrase, I think that companies that utilize patent (or IP) whitespace analysis to define their product and technology development pathways are quite possibly setting themselves up for failure.  And, it’s bad enough that a single innovation project might fail as a result of the faulty data inputs that can occur from relying on whitespace assessments, but I think that most corporate processes incorporating patent whitespace analysis are based upon faulty methodology, thus setting the organization up for sustainable failure. For the uninitiated, when applied to the patent world, the term “whitespace” designates an analysis methodology that identifies the absence of patents in a particular product or technology area as a primary driver of innovation decision-making.  This term has been used for some years by patent and business professionals alike to provide information about whether one can obtain Continue Reading →

We’re Measuring the Wrong Things: Inventiveness and Patents Do Not Equal Innovation

Few things infuriate me more than supposed experts who make statements along the lines of “patents are critical to innovation.”  I have avoided stating my views widely in this forum because I didn’t want to get into a contest of one upmanship with my patent lawyer peers.  However, in the last couple of weeks, several pieces of information have hit my radar screen that make this seem like the right time to go public with my views. Let my position be very clear:  we create a false dichotomy when saying “innovation is not possible without patents.”  The issue is much more complex and nuanced than this:  in a particular instance, patents may be critical to innovation, but they might also be only slightly important or–likely in the majority of situations–they might be wholly irrelevant to innovation.  (I talk more about this in this recent interview in Innovation Management Magazine.) Unfortunately, where you stand also depends on where you sit, and sitting behind a desk writing or examining patents may color your belief that patents are the cure for America’s innovation ills.  (The cynic would likely note that relying on a patent practitioner or the Commissioner of the US Patent Office Continue Reading →

R & D Tax Credits Mean Little to Businesses That Do Not Competently Manage Their Intangible Assets

This week, President Obama will announce a $100 billion proposal to stimulate the economy, where much of the focus is to be placed in the area of R & D tax credits. In addition to making the R & D tax credit permanent, Obama will seek increasing one of the credits available from 14 to 17 percent. This announcement brought to mind a blog post that I wrote almost 2 years ago addressing how I believe that many companies fail to capture all they are entitled with respect to existing R & D tax credits due to the fact that most companies do a poor job identifying, capturing and protecting their intangible assets.  So, irrespective of one’s opinion of whether this new stimulus plan will help the economy, it is my strong belief that many–if not most–corporations, both large and small alike, will fail to fully capitalize on the tax credits available to them because their organizations do not possess the accounting methodologies necessary to identify, capture and protect their organization’s intangible assets.  Without such infrastructures, which are known generally as “intellectual asset management” systems, it is virtually impossible to accurately assess an organization’s entitlement to tax credits associated with Continue Reading →

Much Ado About Patent Marking: Why It is So Hard for Corporations to Get It Right and Why False Marking Lawsuits Might be a Good Thing Overall

It is fairly rare for patents to make hit the radar screen of mainstream news outlets but, recently, there has been much space allotted to the issue of patent mis-marking and lawsuits being brought by third parties for “violation” of the law requiring that products cannot be marked with an incorrect patent number.  Indeed, the usually substance-free local paper in my mother’s Southwest Florida community reported about the flood of patent mis-marking lawsuits.  And, it is no wonder that the undoubtedly arcane issue of patent marking has reached the status of “news” in a small-town paper given the huge number of cases currently pending in the federal courts.  It seems as if patent marking litigation may be the new business model for trial lawyers who are looking for a new “gravy train” to extract substantial legal fees from corporations whose activities violate the letter (but not necessarily the spirit) of the law. First, an explanation:  U.S. patent law expressly dictates that products should be marked with the number of patent(s) with claims that cover that same product.  If one does not mark the product, the patentee cannot obtain damages for infringement that occurs either prior to its giving “actual notice” Continue Reading →

Innovation Professionals–Take Charge of Patents to Ensure ROI of Your Efforts (includes a case study)

Recently, I have been spending considerable time working with innovation professionals to demonstrate the value-creation opportunities available by embracing IP strategy as an aspect of their processes, and why patent drafting should be an aspect of their roles and responsibilities.  More specifically, my efforts have focused on why and how patents matter to the ROI of corporate innovation today.  Most business people would likely acknowledge that patents are important to protect their products from competition, however, the vast majority of the innovation professionals whom I meet have no idea how critical patent strategy can be to the success of their business plans. Modern innovation processes typically start with identification of a consumer need or the like.  In so doing, the innovation team undertakes detailed research to draw dimension around a product that will solve this consumer need.  This research will be directed toward identifying the multiple ways the consumer need can be addressed.  For a number of reasons–some of which will be related to specific competencies of the company–only one of these ways will be selected as the go-to-market product strategy.  By the time the product is fleshed out, these myriad alternative ways to solve the consumer need will be Continue Reading →

The News is Out: We Now Have an Intangible Asset-Based Corporate Economy

(Ed. Note:  A family emergency has been keeping me away from the office.  The good news is that I have been catching up on my RSS feeds and reading some really interesting stuff, albeit a bit late.  One of these interesting reads is a David Brooks piece dealing with corporate intangible assets.  Since this was published Christmas week, others may have missed it, too.  And, when pundits pick up on what you have been talking about for years, I means that the public is finally “getting” it!) David Brooks’ Op-Ed in the December 22, 2009 New York Times raises some interesting points about our new intangible economy.  In this piece, entitled “The Protocol Economy,” Brooks recognizes that we have moved from an economy that makes “stuff” –that is, a physical goods economy—to one that deals in “protocols.”  (I think it would be more appropriate to call our evolving intangible economy a “process-oriented economy,” but I will go with Brooks’ characterization for this post.)  The point of Brooks’ piece is to highlight the need of economics to transform its models in order to deal with this new reality. Brooks’ states: Protocols are intangible . . . .[A] nation has to have Continue Reading →

A New Framework for IP Strategy Conversations: Ex Post vs. Ex Ante (from IP P®OSPE©TIVE)

(Editorial Note:  I have gotten some great feedback from my recent post 9 Out of 10 Patents are Worthless:  Here’s Why and How to Keep it Happening from You (Part 1 of 4).  I am working on the next installment, so be on the look out for more of my thoughts on this meaningful topic.) Readers of the IP Asset Maximizer Blog will probably enjoy this very smart post from Ian McClure of IP P®OSPE©TIVE entitled “A New Legal Landscape for IP:  Ex Ante will Join Ex Post Services“.  (While the post says some very flattering things about me, this is not why I am recommending it:  the IP P®OSPE©TIVE blog is consistently good, and Ian “gets” IP business issues.)  In this post, Ian frames IP Strategy in terms of “ex post” and “ex ante”–that is, instead of dealing with IP issues after it exists (i.e., ex post), IP Strategy addresses IP prior to its development in the course of developing value within the corporation as it relates to IP and intangibles. Ian McClure explains: [T]he IP legal profession has perhaps relied on [a post ante business model] to an even greater degree [than other lawyers], as the general lack Continue Reading →

IP Quality Must be a Key Feature in Any Financial Product Based on IP Assets

Neil Wilkof of the great IP Finance blog brought up a couple of interesting issues in his latest blog post entitled Securitization of IP: Urban Legend, or Playing Soon in a Theatre Near You? Specifically, he wonders if the desire for innovative (and not discredited) financial products today will result in the emergence of IP securitization as a model for raising capital and, if so, if the there will be a place for IP professionals in the process of valuing such IP.  I recommend Neil’s post to anyone who is interested in how IP assets might be leveraged to create opportunities outside of the usual protection of the IP owner’s products and technology. Moreover, I agree with Neil’s view that if IP is going to be a recognized as a means to raise capital, improvements have to be made in the way finance and IP professionals interact. Put simply, if IP forms the basis upon which companies raise money, the quality of the IP must be well understood so as to allow development of a reality-based risk profile for the transaction.  This cannot be accomplished without putting someone who understands IP in the center of the process. To use a simple Continue Reading →