Week 12: intellectual property #4

In this blogpost, I will summarize my online research in regards to the topic in the presentation.

I found this interesting article that listed 5 best practices for creating an IP strategy. I thought it would be cool to share it here.

1. File early for patents
New patent laws in the US are based off the "first to file" regime. Filing early is absolutely critical to getting your idea in first, and getting your patent underway as quickly as possible.

2. Control the distribution of your ideas
There is a difference between distributing non confidential information for feedback, as opposed to sharing the totality of your idea, including all the novel, patentable aspects of your innovation. Once your ideas have leaked into the public domain, you may never be able to patent them anywhere, as the idea is not considered novel anymore.

3. Own the process: don't leave it all to the lawyers
Understanding the filing process, working efficiently with the lawyers and creating a strategy and roadmap around filing patents are critical for getting the best return on investment.

4. Build an IP portfolio that increases your evaluation
The iP filling needs to be very strategic, creating the right balance of offensive and defensive goals while positioning the company to gain market share, enhancing valuation and positioning for funding, and increasing the likelihood of a successful exit.

5. Manage the risk of litigation
Having strong patent portfolio can provide ammunition to countersue the competitor, and in that regard, will make them think twice before suing you.

Week 12: intellectual property #3

In this blogpost, I will focus on IP strategy for growth.

Above is a chasm graph that illustrates the IP strategy lifecycle. The key here is that you want to build an IP portfolio to increase valuation. Your goals are: freedom to operate, block competitors, support future products, hedge against litigation, attract buyers & investors, monetization, liquidation value.

A strong IP portfolio supports the later stages after the chasm. Your sources of IP can come from internal R&D and filing patents, buying patents, or in-licensing (university, government labs, etc.).
As you can see from the graph, before the chasm is labeled as developing IP position. After that, you begin your IP commercialization and monetization. And eventually, portfolio liquidation.

It is important to keep in mind that IP strategy can determine a product's success, market share, and profitability. A failure to properly address IP issues can result in loss of market share, margin erosion, and reduced market competitiveness.

Week 12: intellectual property #2

In this blogpost, I will go more into the IP industry as explained in the presentation.

There are four major forces impacting the patent marketplace: the IP litigation is at an all time high, very active patent transaction markets, USPTO overloaded and underfunded, global competition is changing the iP playing field. As we all know, the US patent prosecution process is on a "first to file" basis.

In the current 21st century patent marketplace, there is an addition to simply IP creators and IP users. Now, IP creators are operating companies, independent inventors, universities, research institutions, government labs. There are intermediaries that include non practicing entities, patent funds / aggregators, market makers, and financial services. Finally, there are IP users which include operating companies and others.

I found really interesting the industry trends to watch in patent monetization. These include 3 main points.
1. enforcement business model is under attack - patent litigation declines for first time in 5 years
2. patent transactions slowing down - especially soft. patent; buying moved to China
3. focus shifting to validity

In the next blogpost I will talk about growth, but I included this one because it has a good overview of the current IP marketplace.

Week 12: intellectual property #1

In this week's blogposts, I will be talking about our guest speaker's topic: The role of intellectual property as a strategic business asset.

Just to start off, it is interesting to see that 80% of S&P 500 Market value is consisted of intangible assets. These can be patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, etc.

I actually learned how to differentiate the terms I just listed above. In the presentation, she says that copyrights are original works of authorship (and this can take any form of work) and it lasts author's life and 70 years. Trademarks is a word, name, symbol, or device used in trade to distinguish goods. Trade secrets are business items/information that are of economic value and are kept confidential. Patents are right to exclude others from making, using, or selling products covered by invention in a defined territory. Patent's life is 20 years from filing.

I thought the distinguishing definitions of each of these intangible assets really clarified my doubts and made the entire material more clear. It is definitely surprising that over 80% of the market value are laid in these secrets / patents. It makes sense when you think about it, especially in a largely growing tech industry.

Week 11: Ted talk #4

In this blogpost I will talk about Johanna Blakley's presentation on "Lessons from fashion's free culture".

In my opinion, I thought this was the most interesting and engaging presentation. So her presentation relates to the idea that many creative industries are shackled by patents and copyrights, however, there is one that remains different: fashion. Counterintuitively, this has been great for this industry.

She says that fashion's intellectual property only goes as far as trademarking. It is very common for designers to build upon each other's ideas. And like we all know, fashion is very fast paced and constantly moving forward. Designers have to come up with new fashion trends for each season every year.

She mentions how top quality brands like Gucci aren't concerned with others copying their style because the end consumer is different. Those who shop at Gucci is there for a specific reason, and those who shop at H&M with knock-off styles are there because they are a different set of customers.

She then goes to argue that people think fashion can survive without patents because it is a low earning industry. However, when she pulled a chart of top grossing industries, the top ones are all without patent controls, and way at the bottom are technology and other industries that are heavily patented.

I simply thought this presentation was extremely interesting and it was very cool to learn about fashion and viewing it in a different light.

Weel 11: Ted talk #3

In this blogpost I will talk about Beth Noveck's presentation on "Demand a more open-source government".

As the former deputy CTO at the White House, Beth Noveck thinks that a government should call upon its citizens to share their expertise for the sake of better governance.

She gives an example of how in the past, a single person in the US Patent Office has had the authority to bestow a patent. However, with the new Peer-to-Patent system, anyone can weigh on applications, including those who have a deeper base of knowledge in a field.

Although we haven't yet seen what this type of governance may look like, we have made small steps towards open-source government. From the projects overseas to simply hackathons, we see the power of people contributing together in government.

Opening up government data can definitely lead to more innovative and useful applications where this data can be used for an interesting use.

I definitely agree with her viewpoint here, because more minds to a common problem can only bring more ideas and better improvements. This is the key idea behind working in group projects at school: students from different backgrounds with similar knowledge can each share their ideas to jointly create something amazing.

Week 11: Ted talk #2

In this blogpost I will be going over Drew Curtis' presentation on "How I beat a patent troll".

He first defines patent troll. It is a term given to anyone who files a patent for something already being done, and then sues the people already doing it.

He explains that his company was sued for violating a patent for "news releases via email". He says that his company deals with news, and they were being sued for it. However, news releases at the time only referred to press releases and printed forms of media, which did not include email.

He says that the average troll defense can cost $2 million and take over 18months (if you win). This is why most companies settle during a patent lawsuit, even though most of the companies did not infringe on the patent. The point to settle is that it will be much less cheaper this way and less time consuming.

However, he was persistent about pressing on the lawsuit. He made the patent troll provide proof and replied no settlement to the patent troll's offer of a settlement.

One of the key takeways here is that infringement is much easier to prove than a patent. And that it is important to make it clear that either a) your company has no money at all or b) you would rather spend all that money with a lawyer and pressing on the lawsuit charges. He says that patent trolls' end goal is a settlement, because they make money by taking a percentage from the settlement. However, when a settlement cannot be reached, they are less incentivized to press on.