IP Management for Superior Shareholder Returns

Ron Carson
Vice President of Marketing
Innovation Asset Group

Intellectual Property is a strategic business asset and in many cases is the most valuable asset a company owns. Many times in this blog and in our newsletter we have discussed the strategic importance of IP and numerous perspectives from which to view it.

We have looked at the strategic importance of IP from the perspective of the IP Value Chain. We have looked at the importance of IP using various innovation metrics as a proxy for IP, including the S&P Global Innovation Index . We have discussed the importance of portfolio management, and related it to stock price appreciation in the Ocean Tomo patent index. We have looked at it in the context of under-reported royalties related to IP causing revenue to literally leak out of corporations. We've discussed the fact that countries from China to the Barbados have national IP strategies.

And at the moment, we're preparing to release a study that quantifies the potential cost savings to a company through the implementation of a comprehensive IP strategy and management infrastructure. (Contact us if you'd like to know more about the study when it becomes available.)

I recently came across an excerpt of a study done by the folks over at Steel City Re. Over the course of several years, they have correlated superior IP management at companies with above average return to shareholders. I haven't looked at the details of the study, but it seems that it should be a powerful tool for IP departments to help justify budgets, resources and head-count with executive management.

For every chief IP counsel, officer, strategist or attorney currently getting squeezed between the demands of properly managing their IP portfolio and ongoing budget cuts, the research over at Steel City Re may help steer the conversation away from IP as a cost center to IP as the basis for superior shareholder returns.

"Steel City Re has amassed a significant amount of empirical data from this index showing that superior managers of corporate intangible assets (reputation) reward shareholders with above average equity returns. The data, viewed retrospectively, show that companies whose index rankings place them in the top 25% of the 2,483 companies studied during the 28 month period from Dec 2005 to Feb 2008 rewarded their shareholders with an average (portfolio) return of 18% which is about three times the market return of 6%. Moreover, companies whose IA management was very good and who continued to improve, delivered outstanding returns.

Among the companies whose average index ranking was in the top 25%, those whose index rankings did not decline during the 28 month period, numbering 290, rewarded their shareholders with an average (portfolio) return of 50% which is about three times the group average.

Companies whose index rankings declined, numbering 331, rewarded shareholders with average (portfolio) returns of -6%.



In an ongoing series of studies, our data consistently show that superior stewards of intangible assets reward their shareholders with returns that are on the order of three times greater than their peers."

The next time your corporate budget committee treats the IP department as a mere cost center and asks you to absorb yet another round of budget cuts and head count reductions, remind your executives that they have an obligation to shareholders to equip the IP department with adequate resources and the solutions they need to help manage the company to superior shareholder returns.

Innovation Will Overcome Recession - Is Your IP Department Prepared?

Ron Carson
Vice President of Marketing
Innovation Asset Group

There is a lot of negative press about the economy. Too much. In addition to not reading the statements from my investment accounts, I may soon have to give up reading the news as well. Enough with the doom & gloom. It is time to look forward to, prepare for, and take action to bring about a prosperous future. Regardless of your political affiliation, you have to admire the quote from a radio talk show host here in the U.S. It went something like this: "I refuse to participate in this recession." While financial reality for many of us is likely different than its for a multi-millionaire, nationally syndicated radio talk show host, I admire the sentiment.

The Glass is Half-Full
There is a great article from the Washington Post entitled: 5 Myths About Our Sputtering Economy. It reads: "For months now, the nation's economic obituary has been splashed across the front pages of nearly every newspaper in the country. Journalists and pundits alike have warned that America's long-running global dominance has come to a screeching halt, eclipsed by growing markets in such places as China and India and frittered away by our own mismanagement, excesses and myopic approach to the future. We're long past due for a reality check. The United States and the incoming Obama administration face formidable challenges, but the country is by no means on its last legs. Here are a few key myths that need to be dispelled."

Further, it is not as though we're all idly standing by waiting for the next piece of the economic sky to fall. There are stimulus packages already in place and even more on the way to help jump start the economy. There is an interesting piece in BusinessWeek called “The Innovation Economy.” It describes how the incoming administration should build the innovation economy by focusing on entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity.

"The Obama Administration should ignite new company formation as the vehicle to create tens of millions of new jobs. These new businesses should take on the nation's greatest challenges in renewable energy and the environment, health care, education, transportation, and global peace." The article goes on to spell out a series of seven steps to help spur innovation.

The Europeans Aren't Standing Still
While those of us in the U.S. wait for the new administration to take office, the European Union isn't waiting around to see what the U.S. does to recover. The European Commission is proposing a coordinated response to the EU’s deepening economic crisis. The Commission is proposing €200bn in measures to boost purchasing power and generate growth and jobs. The Europeans are seizing this as an opportunity to shore up their innovation infrastructure and global competitiveness in a knowledge economy. "By jumpstarting the economy with investment in infrastructure, green technology, energy efficiency and innovation, the package aims to accelerate the transition to a knowledge-based, low-carbon society. It encourages more partnerships between government and business."

Several EU countries (including the UK, France and Germany) have already announced their own stimulus packages. The commission is now calling on all nations to follow suit, under an umbrella of European coordination. Governments would spend this money in the way best suited to their own economy as different countries face different challenges. Similar economic stimulus packages are being considered or implemented in most developed nations around the world.

This Too Shall Pass
The stimulus packages in the U.S., the European Union and in other countries just may provide the elusive economic catalyst we are all hoping will kick in soon. There is a great piece at Forbes.com that describes how this is likely to happen -- how we will collectively make it happen.

"As long as human beings attempt to better themselves and improve standards of living, and as long as policymakers don't compound problems, the natural course of growth will return."

And for the IP Professionals
And finally, on a topic that hits a little closer to home for most readers of our newsletter and blog, here is a great post by Tryon Stading at Innography. According to his research: US patent filing and IP litigation markets have experienced significant growth during recessions. The flip side of this increase is that companies may be facing increasing litigation costs as they defend their products and market positions. I guess either way, IP professionals have a good chance of being kept busy through the recession and subsequent recovery!

So What Are You Doing About it?
The recession will not last. The innovative spirit of people everywhere will eventually lead us to the next profitable market cycle. Where there is innovation there is IP. Now is a good time to look within your company to determine what you can do today to be better positioned in the future. Are you still capturing all of the new patentable ideas within you company, or are you cutting back in that area? Are you cutting back on patent filings? What are you doing to ensure you are filing the most business-critical patents? Are you trying to offset costs by licensing non-core patents? Although your corporate budgeting process may not agree with this sentiment, now is not the time to be haphazardly trimming expenses around your IP portfolio. Now is the time to be smart with your IP, and to tightly align it with the growth strategies of your business.

IP Management & Budget Cuts: Have Your Cake and Eat it Too!

by Ron Carson
Vice President of Marketing
Innovation Asset Group

Unless you've been shipwrecked on a remote island in the South-Pacific, you are probably aware that we've got somewhat of a global economic downturn on our hands. While no one really knows how long it will last, I think we can all attest to the fact that it is having an effect on what had become a fairly comfortable state of "business as usual." Already we are seeing the all too predictable rounds of budget cuts and layoffs at many companies in a multitude of industries.

IP departments and the portfolios they manage are often perceived as matters of legal expense and are often the target of corporate cost cutting measures. In the economic downturn they are being asked to contribute even greater expense reductions to the corporate good. While it is easy for a corporate finance department to arbitrarily allocate a 20% budget cut, it is not always easy for the IP department to implement those cuts. Should the cuts come from allowing certain patents to expire? What if they are core to a revenue stream of the company? Should the cuts come from applying for fewer patents? What impact will that have on the future competitiveness of the company? I suggest that cost savings can be realized AND that companies can strategically manage their IP portfolios at the same time – i.e. be more efficient in the short term, without sacrificing competitive advantage in the long term.

In these tough economic times, IP departments are caught between a rock and a hard place: asked to spend less (cut your budget by 20% please), but ensure future revenue streams are protected (you better not let anything slip through the cracks). The more I think about it, the “rock-and-a-hard-place” analogy is probably not harsh enough. A more applicable analogy is one of being caught in a vice: on one side the need to lower expenses is pushing in. On the other side, the need to protect the company's business strategy and future revenue streams is squeezing in the opposite direction. There is constant pressure. The effect of the economic downturn is to apply a few additional twists to the vice, squeezing IP departments even harder.

But I suggest it is possible to do both: reduce expenses (and be more efficient), and be strategic with your IP portfolio at the same time. In fact, some of our own research points to the possibility of being able to reduce IP expenses, while freeing up resources to focus on more strategic IP issues. (We'd be happy to share aspects of this research with readers who are interested – just contact us through our website.)

Lesson from the Past

When companies sought efficiency from CRM solutions, they didn't focus solely on cost reduction at the expense of losing valuable customers. They took a strategic approach that included being more efficient and saving money. For example, they used the exercise as an opportunity to focus appropriate resources on the most valuable customers, and consciously decided it would be okay for other non-core or non-profitable customers to leave the fold.

IP management should be handled in a similar manner. IP departments should become more efficient and reduce costs, but not at the expense of the competitive advantage their business derives from its IP portfolio.

Reduce IP-related expenses: streamline communication with outside counsel firms, say good-bye to the multitude of partial-hour billing line items related to administrative overhead & communication, prioritize invention disclosures so only the most important inventions evolve to a patent application, allow unused patents to lapse.

Be more efficient: automate the more repetitive tasks & workflows, keep more files electronically in the database of your IP management solutions so they are easily accessed by those who need them. Free up your employees to focus on more value-add activities such as mapping patents to products, business units, technology segments, etc. (There are a few good pointers on Duncan Bucknell's blog on this topic.)

Be more strategic: analyze the results of your portfolio mapping, assess relative areas of strength and weakness, rate & rank patents by relevant business grouping, set & measure progress against patent production goals that align with the growth plans of the company, profile competitive IP portfolios, patent for strategic advantage in your market.

I don't know who originally penned the thought, but I've heard it said recently that no company has ever saved its way to success. Successful companies invest their way to growth. They invest in innovation, they invest in business process and infrastructure and they invest in their people. The companies who invest in IP and their ability to strategically manage their IP portfolios will benefit from cost savings in the short term and competitive advantage in the long term.

In the Midst of a Global Financial Meltdown, Smart Companies will Increase Strategic IP Management Efforts

By Ron Carson
Vice President of Marketing
Innovation Asset Group

In the midst of the turmoil in financial markets and what appears to be an inevitable global economic downturn, companies will face increased pressure to cut costs. This may very well lead to decreased budgets and reduced headcount in areas related to innovation and intellectual property.

However, Innovation is the basis for competition in a global knowledge-based economy and intellectual property is the vehicle through which innovation is protected and monetized. To cut costs in the areas of innovation and intellectual property would have an adverse effect on the competitiveness and profitability of companies in the future.

Now is not the time to scale back investments in innovation, intellectual property and monetization activities. By scaling back the organizational infrastructure -- the people, processes and tools engaged in the IP value chain, companies will a) negatively impact future growth, competitiveness and profitability; and b) may actually increase the cost to develop, protect and leverage IP in the future.

Now is the time to ensure focused attention in key areas of the Intellectual Property Value Chain™ to lower costs in the short term, while positioning for a stronger competitive position in the long term.



Innovation
Innovation is a top priority for company executives, and well it should be. Studies have shown that more innovative companies tend to have more favorable stock price performance over time. For example, historical data show that the S&P/BusinessWeek Global Innovation Index companies outperformed S&P Global 100 Index companies by more than 7% in 2007 and have done 5% better since the middle of 2005.

Other innovation related indices, such as The Innovation Index(TM) has beaten the broader market and was up 9% in 2008 through September 19th vs. a 15% loss for the S&P 500.

I would argue that now is the time for companies to turn their attention towards closely aligning innovation with the strategic business direction of the company. Set innovation targets in key technology areas, deploy a web-based invention disclosure form for the entire employee population, implement a common invention scoring system, prioritize inventions for patenting, reward inventors for innovations deemed worthy of patent protection, and report on progress against targets.

This focused approach will help ensure that R&D expenditures are properly targeted, that the innovations are properly protected and that the company is better positioned to leverage its innovations in the future.


Portfolio Management
In regards to the importance of maintaining an intellectual property portfolio, numerous studies indicate that companies with a large number of high quality patents also benefit from enhanced market valuations. For example, the OT300 Patent Index – which tracks companies with the most “valuable” patents, based on a proprietary Ocean Tomo algorithm – has consistently outperformed the S&P500 in recent years.

Even though your company may not be a member of the OT300, now is the time to use your enterprise intellectual property asset management system to map or categorize you IP portfolio in terms of products, business units, technology areas and any other business-relevant category need. Unused assets can be allowed to expire to lower costs. Assets that have perhaps become irrelevant to your business and are still in the prosecution stage can be allowed to lapse to save even more money.

Look to your IP management solution to implement a paperless office. Efficiencies gained can be used to allocate internal resources to more strategic management issues instead of administrative ones, reduce headcount, or negotiate lower fees with your outside counsel firm. The IP Think Tank blog had some other practical ideas for your reading enjoyment.


Commercialization
I found an interesting post describing the opportunity to offset the effects of the financial crisis by out-licensing IP and generating new revenue streams in the form of royalty payments. "Is the financial crisis taking its toll on IP monetization?"

IP Commercialization or monetization through licensing agreements sounds like a viable way for a company to generate incremental revenue. However, studies have shown that royalty agreements tend to be mismanaged to the extent that 88% of all royalties are under collected and almost half of all royalty agreements are under reported by 25% or more. Billions of dollars are being wasted.

For companies just starting out on an IP Commercialization effort, as well for companies who have more established programs, now is the time to stop the revenue leakage associated with IP licensing programs. The current market environment is a great opportunity to implement a system to manage license agreements, dates, milestones; and of course royalty payments. If the studies mentioned above are indeed accurate, even a small licensing program that generates $100M in revenue, has the potential of recovering an additional $20M over the life of the licensing contracts.

I admit to the possibility that I am somewhat biased in my views on these topics, as my company develops software that addresses the issues and opportunities raised in this blog post. But it seems to me that today is a great time to look at and capitalize on a number of cost saving and revenue generating opportunities across the IP Value Chain.

Improve Venture Capital Returns with IP Portfolio Management

By Ron Carson
Vice President of Marketing
Innovation Asset Group

For all of the glamour and allure surrounding the Venture Capital industry, one would expect the investment returns from VC funds to be significantly higher relative to other investment vehicles that are more widely available. However, industry research indicates that over time, venture capital returns have been roughly equal to the stock market in general. Indeed, over half of all venture capital-backed companies fail and roughly the same 50% of all money invested in venture capital funds is lost. This blog post discusses how a comprehensive IP management strategy could help VC firms lower their risk and increase the return in their respective funds.

According to some conversations I’ve had with people in the VC industry, the statistics above don’t tell the full picture. In addition to half of the venture funded companies that fail, there are those that are described as the “walking dead” – companies that neither go out of business, nor ever provide the substantial returns needed to satisfy typical VC models. One panelist I saw at a venture conference last year suggested that for their financial model to make sense, they needed at least 1 out of 10 companies to provide a 20x return on their investment. This could be especially troubling for the industry, given the emerging trend towards fewer and lower valued liquidity events.

But what if a venture fund could extract incremental investment returns from their portfolio companies, including the failed companies and from the so-called walking-dead companies? I believe a comprehensive cross-portfolio IP management strategy could provide increased returns to venture investors.

IP Due Diligence to Lower Business Risk
VC’s typically invest in companies at the earliest stages of their respective life cycles. At the point of making the investment decision, the venture capitalist is placing his or her bet on the business idea, the management team; and whether they know it or not, they are also placing a bet on the IP which underpins the business.
It is critical that VC firms perform proper and adequate due diligence in support of their investment decisions. Sorry, but simply having a list of patents and applications is not enough. Investors need to understand whether or not the patents are strong patents, with adequate coverage for the business and the technology in question. The following quote sums it up better than I can:

“In particular, before you invest in a new business idea for a new venture, why wouldn't you want to know whether you can own the business idea in the long term or whether you have minimal opportunity to innovate freely in relation to that business idea? Or, why wouldn't you want to know whether another firm has invested $100K or more in patent rights alone in the new business idea that you are investigating?”

These all-important questions should be answered during the investor’s due diligence. Be warned however, that topographical patent landscape maps or other abstract visualizations do not represent a sufficient level of analysis. They may be an improvement over a simple list (although some might argue that point), but a proper analysis must involve a detailed examination of patent claims in the context of the business and of the technology in question. There are a bunch of good blog posts on this subject on the IP Asset Maximizer Blog.

IP Portfolio Management to Lower Costs & Increase Margins
Although most of the portfolio companies financed by a given venture fund will be relatively small, and have a relatively small portfolio of patents, it may be worth it for the VC to look across the entire IP portfolio in aggregate.

I did a quick analysis of a couple regional VC firms – with relatively small portfolio’s of companies, these firms had an invested interest in over 300 and 600 patents. By corporate standards, these are sizeable portfolios. I would expect to find even larger portfolios with larger venture firms.
In businesses with portfolios of this magnitude, it is important to understand the portfolio in multiple dimensions. For example, IP professionals, marketers and business leaders want to know what IP assets support which products. Knowledge of these relationships can allow a company to block competitors, lower costs, raise margins and ultimately increase returns to investors. In addition, they will want to categorize their patents by the markets and technology areas they serve, as it helps them understand if their patents align with the business focus.

Bringing this discipline to IP Portfolio management has the added benefit of revealing patents that are not core to the business of the company. With this knowledge in hand, a typical company will seek to lower costs by letting patents expire, or they may seek to sell or out-license their non-core patents, thus creating a new source of revenue.

IP Licensing to Increase Returns
Patents that are not core to the business of the owning company may still be valuable to other companies and other industries. There are some well-known examples of companies who have been able to generate significant revenues from their non-core patents through active licensing programs -- Companies like IBM and Qualcomm come to mind. However there are a number of other companies that have generated significant returns by monetizing their non-core IP assets. Mindspeed and AMCC are two recent examples:

“Mindspeed Sells Non- Core Patents For $10 Million”

“AMCC Sells Patents”

In the case of a VC portfolio of companies, each company may only have a small number of non-core patents. But across the portfolio of companies, the venture firm may have rights to a significant number of patents that may be valuable to other companies/industries.

We can extend the concept of monetizing non-core assets of the top companies in the venture portfolio to the “walking-dead” and even the defunct portfolio companies (although with these latter two groups, we may worry less about the distinction between core and non-core patents). In many cases, the business model and the due diligence supporting the original investment in these were probably sound, but the business failed due to execution or market timing issues. In many cases the underlying IP assets may still be fully valid, valuable and available for entry into a focused licensing and monetization program.

A multi-million dollar licensing revenue stream would nicely compliment the periodic liquidity events in today’s VC market.

Aligning IP Strategy and Business Strategy

In previous posts we’ve discussed the importance of IP and that business strategy is closely intertwined with IP strategy -- whether most companies realize it or not. (We’ve also written a white paper on the subject.) In this post, I thought I’d discuss a couple of examples in which a good IP Management System can help companies deal with real world business-level issues.

IP is important because it accounts for somewhere between 70%-85% of the value of corporations (depending on which report you read). And the value of an intellectual property asset is determined by its relationship to other things, such as its relationship to products, other IP, people and agreements. For example, a patent may have more value if it enables a key aspect of a product of the assignee or of another company. Similarly, the patent’s value can in part be derived from the licensing agreements to which it is related.

So... the value of a company is derived from the value of its intellectual property. And the value of intellectual property derived from the relationships it has with other things. Therefore, the management of intellectual property should include the management those relationships as well.

This makes sense in theory, but let’s test it on a couple of scenarios:

Mergers & Acquisitions
The value and importance of intellectual property assets are playing a greater role than ever before in terms of assets received through mergers, acquisitions and takeovers. These valuable assets include patents, trademarks, copyrights, know-how, trade secrets and domain names.

In the course of M&A due diligence, the acquiring party must not only assess the inventory of intellectual property included in the transaction, but to properly value the portfolio, they must also consider the network of relationships surrounding the IP portfolio. For example, the acquiring company must also evaluate the contracts & agreements that could affect their ownership or rights to the core IP assets. (There is an article on the WIPO site (PDF) that explains this in greater detail.)

M&A deals can completely fall apart and shareholder value can be lost due to mis-management of an IP portfolio. A round-table transcript (PDF) in Mergers & Acquisitions Magazine actually mentions a situation in which the acquirer backed out of a transaction because the target’s IP portfolio did not have coverage where they thought it did -- the acquirer would have effectively been excluded from a number of international markets due to a lack of related international patents in the patent family. To put it another way, it was not just the inventory of assets that was important to the M&A transaction, but the relationships the assets had or did not have with other things. As you can imagine, this would have a significant negative impact on the relative value of the IP portfolio in question.

It is not the issues of docketing and cost management that define IP management, rather it is the alignment of IP strategy and business strategy. This alignment is achieved by understanding and managing the network of relationships that surround the IP portfolio.

Product Launches
We frequently hear that IP Departments are looking for ways to become more strategic to the business units of their respective companies. As such, they are looking for ways to add value to important business events such as new product launches.

Product launches are one of those events that require many different business functions to come together and operate cohesively, if only for a brief period of time. In the context of intellectual property, there are the obvious considerations such as patent protection and freedom to operate in the new markets. But there are also a number ancillary IP issues that may be less obvious.

For example, there are a number of contracts and agreements that need to be in place to execute a successful launch. These include agreements for distribution, sales & marketing, service & support and others. Each of these items need to be coordinated and require collaboration between legal, marketing, business and the local teams.

Again, it is not simply the management of intellectual property in the traditional sense that ensures a successful product launch. Rather, the coordination of a number of IP assets (patents, trademarks, products) and their related contractual obligations (distribution agreements, licensing agreements, etc) that determine how well IP is aligned with the business strategy.

If not properly in place, any one of these related pieces can lead to adverse business results. A poorly executed freedom to operate analysis can result in costly legal battles. Similarly, an missing or poorly written distribution agreement can lead to unnecessary expense or lost revenue to the company.

Other
As mentioned previously: It is not the issues of docketing and cost management that define IP management, rather it is the alignment of IP strategy and business strategy. This alignment is achieved by understanding and managing the network of relationships that surround the IP portfolio.

There are other scenarios that would make good illustrative examples of the importance of managing the network of relationships around the IP portfolio. They include competitive intelligence, trademark licensing, joint ventures and others. Perhaps we'll cover some of these in future posts.


About Us
At Innovation Asset Group, we often use the concept of an IP Value Chain to illustrate the nature and importance of the relationships described in this post. We believe an IP Management System should be flexible enough to accommodate the different use-case scenarios described here. More importantly, it should be flexible enough to deal with new challenges that may arise in the future. For example, ask us about automatically analyzing your entire patent portfolio to ensure compliance with the 5/25 rules. (If they ever take effect!)

The IP Audit: Driving by the Rear-View Mirror

by Ron Carson
Regional Sales Director
Innovation Asset Group, Inc.

Previous posts have discussed the dichotomy between the importance of intellectual property (i.e. IP is responsible for >80% of the value of companies) and the degree to which it is mis-managed (70% of execs believe it is managed as a legal task, as opposed to a business asset.) This post is about what I see as a major disconnect between day-to-day IP management and the IP audit.

According to the literature I’ve read, an IP audit can be initiated for any number of reasons. The common theme in all of these reasons is that the IP audit is initiated in response to an event that requires the company to REALLY know what is going on with its IP – as though IP didn’t matter all that much before.

Unfortunately, the IP audit will tell companies about mistakes they’ve already made, or opportunities they’ve already missed, but it won’t necessarily prevent them from making mistakes in the first place.

Perhaps I’m biased because I’m a software vendor, but I suggest that the level of detail required in an IP audit represents the level of detail companies should have in their day-to-day IP management system. That’s not to say that every minute data point in an audit would need to be revisited on a daily basis, but the IP management system should capture the information through the normal course of business that would be required in an audit.

MISPLACED PRIORITIES
Companies spend millions of dollars tracking and managing their tangible assets: inventory, real estate, machinery, computers, etc – millions of dollars to manage just 15% of their corporate value. In reality, intangible assets have to be identified, protected and maintained as well. In fact, I would argue that it is more important to take these measures with intangible assets as they account for ~85% of a company’s value.

INSUFFICIENT APPROACHES
Intellectual property has business implications at many points across the enterprise, and each of these having a role to play in its management – from targeted innovation in research and development to licensing opportunities in business development to cost accounting and royalty tracking by business units. Traditional docketing systems, departmental stop-gap spreadsheets & databases to not address these interdependencies and responsibilities sufficiently.

Docketing
Docketing systems are good at helping companies to ensure that they take appropriate actions by required dates. They do not determine whether these actions are optimal for the business. For example, a company with hundreds of patents could be wasting thousands of dollars annually by maintaining patents that it does not use in its core business – but the docketing system does not care.

Spreadsheets
Spreadsheets are often used to try to make up for shortcomings in the functionality of docketing systems. Companies use them to try to track additional information about intellectual property. However, spreadsheets are error prone, difficult to share and when used in conjunction with docketing systems they can create a need for duplicate data entry. Duplicate data entry increases the opportunity for errors. Speaking of errors, a study quoted in CIO Magazine found that on average, four out of five spreadsheets contained errors. The article went on to describe a number of material spreadsheet blunders that cost the respective companies tens of millions of dollars.

Shared Directories
Shared directories on network servers are sometimes used in an attempt to overcome the inability of spreadsheets to be shared easily. Unfortunately, information kept in a shared directory requires a lot of maintenance in order to ensure that the data is current, and version control becomes a new problem. Although shared directories may be a convenient place to dump bits of information, they are severely limited when it comes to handling key relationships between IP assets and the business.

Standalone Databases
Some companies have tried database programs in an attempt to improve on the limitations of spreadsheets and shared directories. However, these databases are not geared towards sharing data with a distributed workforce. They require extensive IT resources and custom programming, and are expensive to modify as the business changes and grows.

None of the approaches or any combination of the tools described here suffices for the meaningful implementation of strategic IP management. Still, companies try to make them work: many different spreadsheets, databases and directories are deployed in different areas of the company in an attempt to address needs at departmental level. This creates a nightmare scenario of disparate data silos, each with its own risks of data inaccuracies and none with the complete business-oriented picture of the company’s IP assets.

So how do companies address this nightmare scenario of disparate data silos, each with a small piece of the overall IP picture? If they don’t have an IP management system in place already, many companies turn to the IP audit.

AN IP AUDIT
Depending on circumstances, and IP audit can have a wide range of meanings. Generally speaking, an IP audit is an inspection of the IP owned, used or acquired by a business as well as a review of its management, maintenance, exploitation and enforcement.

Seems reasonable…

Unfortunately, the IP audit is like driving a car forward using only the rear view mirror. You’ll find out about opportunities after you’ve already missed them and problems after you’ve already hit them.

What if the IP audit was not a one-off project in a reactive mode to some external event, opportunity or market shift? What if the rigor and thoroughness of the IP audit was captured during the course of business as part of day to day IP management operations? Isn’t that the way most other critical business functions (such as finance, accounting, sales, production, logistics, etc) operate? Why do most companies relegate the management of their most strategic assets to docketing systems and spreadsheets?

FROM IP AUDIT TO IP MANAGEMENT
The management of IP should be an ongoing practice and should become part of the corporate fabric. The next time your company goes through an IP audit, recognize that you have just completed the necessary data gathering to begin the implementation of an IP management system. The question is: will your company leave the results of the audit in binder on a bookshelf, or will you use it to begin to strategically manage the most valuable asset your company owns?

(For more information about strategic IP management systems, visit our website at www.innovation-asset.com.)