Do you treat your patents as a fence or a tollbooth? If you wish for your start-up technology company to obtain investment from or acquisition by a bigger player, you had better understand the difference. Most start-up technology company entrepreneurs and CEO's understand that patents can be key to establishing the value of a new business idea. Typically, entrepreneurs and CEO's such as yourself will engage patent attorneys to build an IP portfolio that protects the start-up's technology and products to the fullest extent possible. The motivation for this effort and expense is, of course, to to protect your start-up's idea from use by others. As management of a start-up you may be seeking to build an ongoing business around the patented technology, but often the goal of building a solid patent portfolio is to make your business an attractive target for investment or acquisition by a larger company. I believe that
Start-up Entrepreneurs & CEO’s: If Your Goal is Investment or Acquisition, You are Probably Patenting the Wrong Things
50% of Venture Capital Investment is Lost: How Your Clients Can Improve These Odds by Using the Right Patent Analytics
THE SKINNY ON THE QUALITY OF VENTURE CAPITAL-RELATED INVESTMENT DECISIONS
If you are a counselor of venture capital firms or entrepreneurs who owning start-up companies that are targets of venture capitalists, you might already be familiar with the high rate of failure associated with such investments. Nonetheless, you may be surprised to find out that 50% of all money invested in venture capital is a loss. This figure, which is based upon separate research projects by a Chicago Graduate School of Business (“GSB”) professor and a former Chief Economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission, indicates that the actual return on venture capital investment is not much different from the average annualized returns on the smallest NASDAQ stocks. In particular, the return on venture capital investment from 1987 to 2001 in these smallest stocks was 62% as compared
Entrepreneurs: Ask 2 Simple Questions to Determine Whether IP Strategy is Critical to Your New Business Venture
Intellectual property ("IP") is often a subject that is "out of sight, out of mind" for entrepreneurs who are launching new business ventures. And, why shouldn't it be: business schools rarely teach much about law in general, let alone about the highly specialized world of IP law. Since non-business school trained entrepreneurs generally take their cues from the methods of their colleagues, it follows that a significant majority of entrepreneurs likely do not consider IP to comprise a necessary step when they are formulating their business plans. My conversations with entrepreneurs from all backgrounds over the years bears this out. When IP does form a fundamental basis of an entrepreneur's new venture, it is likely because scientific or technical subject matter forms the basis of the business. In this context, it makes sense that the scientific or technical core of the business model must be protected by seeking patent coverage. While
The US Patent Office’s Impending Financial Crisis and What Sort of Disruptive Innovations Might be Seen as a Result
My postings have been light for the past few weeks because of the Holidays. I plan on re-posting regular content after the New Year. Nonetheless, I couldn't help posting something this week during my vacation after coming across this wonderful analysis of recent patent issuances post-KSR from Matt Buchanan of the Promote the Progress website and blog. Matt's analysis of PTO issuances over the past several years shows that KSR definitely had an effect on the number of patents issued in the last year. What is obvious from Matt's 2008 issuance data is the fact that the PTO experienced a significant decline in revenue over the past year due to the reduction in issue fees paid by successful patentees. Moreover, this revenue decline will certainly be felt over the next 10 plus years as a result of a reduction in maintenance fees that would have been
Do You Know Your Company Needs Strategic In-House IP Counsel, But Think You Can’t Afford It? One Company’s Solution is Hiring Part-Time Counsel
Analysts say that the current economic downturn will likely last at least until early 2010. While this no doubt seems like almost an eternity for the average consumer, for business strategic planning purposes, this date is just around the corner. Indeed, business managers at many companies are likely conducting “short term” strategic planning efforts targeted for introduction in mid-2010. This might account for the recent uptick in job postings for experienced corporate intellectual property attorneys. I see this increase in job opportunities as signifying that smart corporate leaders are realizing that sustainable business success requires companies to not only introduce innovative products and technology offerings, but also that they strategically protect such innovations. As a result, I believe that more companies will seek to hire strategic in-house IP counsel, which is good news for us IP types. Of course, the traditional model of hiring an in-house IP counsel results in
Investors in the Green Economy: You Could Lose Your Investment in Green Innovators by Failing to Identify the Green Inventors that Came Before Them
With President-Elect Obama's announcement that he will establish an "Apollo Project" to develop a Green Economy, there is no doubt that "the Green Technology train has left the station." Indisputably, investors will start to invest heavily in companies that appear to possess commericializable Green Technology that will enter the marketplace as the US embraces the Green Economy and develops the necessary infrastructure to make this happen. Before staking a claim to one or more of these companies, however, investors should understand whether existing patent rights owned by third parties could undermine the investment potential of even the most promising Green Technology innovators. Anyone seeking to capitalize on the Green Economy and its attendant Green Technology must recognize a fundamental reality of US patent law: in granting a patent, the Patent Office cares only that an invention is useful, novel and nonobvious. Significantly--and this is the rub for investors in Green
Learning from Microsoft’s Hard Trademark Lesson: Your Company Needs a Multi-Faceted IP Strategy
This New York Times article entitled "A New Battle is Beginning in Branding of the Web" demonstrates that companies such as Microsoft and Dell are adopting aggressive Intellectual Property (IP) strategies that include forms of legal protection others than patent rights. The basis of this approach might not be obvious to those who consider these companies "technology companies" at their respective cores. That is, the product lines of Microsoft and Dell (and their counterparts) might more logically be considered by some to be the subject matter for patents, as opposed to trademarks. Nonetheless, the article confirms that more and more companies are reaching outside of the traditional mode of technology patent protection to develop comprehensive IP strategies directed toward creating IP value in multiple dimensions. It is interesting to find out that Microsoft apparently learned the lesson of the need for an IP strategy by almost making a colossal