The IP Business Congress ("IPBC") was held on June 21-23 in Chicago. This meeting, established by IAM Magazine, brought IP business experts, both lawyers and non-lawyers, from around the world to discuss issues relevant to IP. If, like me, you were unable to attend, you will appreciate the blog authors who have thoughtfully posted their summaries and thoughts about the Congress. (If anyone comes across any more, please let me know and I will add them.)
Joff Wild: IAM Magazine Blog
Michael Martin: Broken Symetry Blog
Duncan Bucknell: IP ThinkTank Blog
Peter Zura: 271 Blog (Great overview of the NPE break-out session)
IP.com: Securing Innovation (Interviews with IP Hall of Fame Inductees)
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Everything's Negotiable: How Corporations Can Drastically Reduce Their IP Legal Costs without Sacrificing IP Quality
Corporate legal managers and the business teams they support complain seemingly constantly about outside counsel expense, and intellectual property ("IP") is no exception. And, why wouldn't they complain when every dollar spent on legal representation is money that is effectively removed from the company's P&L statement? This sets up an ongoing tension between corporations and law firms to reduce legal costs even while lawyers' incomes have sky-rocketed in recent years.
For most corporate buyers of legal services, however, the ability to obtain substantive cost reduction has been somewhat limited due to the lack of transparent information available about legal fees. It may be even more difficult for corporate legal services buyers to gain meaningful reductions in IP costs because of the highly specialized nature of this area of law practice which, arguably, makes IP more of a "Black Box" than most areas. Moreover, regardless of the type of law involved, clients just don't talk about what they pay for lawyers because of the confidential nature of the details underlying such information. In any event, even if they could share such information with their peers, the highly subjective nature of legal representation--IP or otherwise--would make cost comparisons between clients not particularly meaningful.
IP law firms have benefited markedly from the lack of pricing transparency. This effectively allows IP lawyers to set the baseline for negotiation on legal fees. If a lawyer thinks the market rate for her services are $500 an hour (and that's what her peers are charging), any discounts or reductions take place from this starting point. In this context, a 10% discount would seem like a "win" for the client, irrespective of the actual business value of the work being done by the lawyer. In fact, value rarely comes enters the conversation between a lawyer and her client.
One must wonder why IP law firms have managed to exercise such pricing power in a world where "everything is negotiable." My opinion is that lawyers have been able to perennially convince clients that price equates with value obtained. And, to validate this ostensible value, a client could look at the opulent downtown offices occupied by his lawyers, as no "cheap" lawyers would reside in such an expensive location. Corporate clients have also seemingly relied on a "wisdom of crowds" theory of IP lawyer value. That is, a law firm wouldn't have so many prestigious clients unless they were good, right?
It is my belief that corporate legal buyers have not pushed IP law firms hard on pricing because it has been too hard to have a conversation about value conferred in the "Black Box" world of IP legal representation. In the business world, if you can't measure it, you can't manage it and IP legal service buyers can neither objectively measure price nor value aspects of their IP legal representation. As a result, corporate IP legal service buyers have failed to develop methods to effectively manage legal costs while still maintaining IP quality, a fact which has been to the great advantage of IP lawyers and law firms.
This is starting to change, however. The current economic environment has made it increasingly untenable for corporations to continue business as usual in regard to how they deal with their IP lawyers. Indeed, a friend of mine who is Chief IP Counsel at a multi-national technology company puts it this way:
I will note that the firms who got my friend's work are known to be the best and brightest IP law firms in the Southeastern US. These firms were competitors of mine when I was a law firm partner and I purchased their services when I was a senior in-house IP counsel at a major US corporation. These firms did not offer such discounts in the past and, if someone dared to asked for such a deep reduction in costs, no doubt would they likely politely "be shown the door." Times have certainly changed.
Interestingly, however, my Chief IP Counsel friend indicated that her "legacy" firms (that is, those firms that had done her company's work for many years prior to her joining the chemical company) did not come to her and offer her discounts in order to keep the business. Her belief is that they enjoyed "milking" her company for fees and saw no reason to proactively reduce the fees they charged her company, even when they found out she was bidding out the work. This comports with what I saw as an in-house IP lawyer: several prestigious firms apparently historically saw my company as a "cash cow" and charged outrageous fees for legal work of dubious quality as long as no one complained.
These anecdotes should demonstrate to corporate buyers of IP legal services that your current law firms are likely not going to proactively offer your company a discount, even when it would be the right thing to do to help you address the budget pressures you are feeling even while your business teams are placing increasing focus on IP as a corporate asset. And, why should they--does your business proactively lower the costs of products when there is no competitive reason to do so? But, as my Chief IP Counsel friend's competitive bidding experience indicates, and as I can confirm from my in-house experience, most corporate IP legal service buyers should assume that they can save considerable outside IP counsel expense by sending their work out for competitive bid.
Unfortunately, corporate legal managers must themselves be proactive in order to get "the right price" for IP legal counsel, where the right price is what the law firm is willing to charge other corporations for similar legal services that presumably also provide comparable overall business value. (This sort of makes IP legal service pricing seem a bit like air travel--the guy next to you may have paid $100's less than you to fly to the same place.) Moreover, one should not feel reticent about "firing" a long-standing IP law firm if the law firm is not willing to sacrifice some of its income to, as my other Chief IP Counsel friend says "to walk with [you] through this dark valley." Loyalty should be a two-way street.
Law firms should acknowledge that their clients can no longer justify paying for IP legal services without also understanding and justifying the business value obtained. As such, law firms must decide whether they can stand to lose a long term client's business forever if they do not move proactively today to demonstrate the specific value they bring to their clients. Law firms must also be willing to modify their pricing structures to provide measurable relief in this time of economic uncertainty. Moreover, law firms must recognize that their competitors are actively seeking their clients and even the most prestigious firms are willing to provide innovative pricing and practice models to gain business (more on this in a subsequent blog post). It is also worth adding that once a client leaves a law firm because of price, chances are that the client will never come back. A bit of proactive "sacrifice" today may provide immeasurable long term benefit by demonstrating to corporate clients that their loyalty is well-deserved.
For most corporate buyers of legal services, however, the ability to obtain substantive cost reduction has been somewhat limited due to the lack of transparent information available about legal fees. It may be even more difficult for corporate legal services buyers to gain meaningful reductions in IP costs because of the highly specialized nature of this area of law practice which, arguably, makes IP more of a "Black Box" than most areas. Moreover, regardless of the type of law involved, clients just don't talk about what they pay for lawyers because of the confidential nature of the details underlying such information. In any event, even if they could share such information with their peers, the highly subjective nature of legal representation--IP or otherwise--would make cost comparisons between clients not particularly meaningful.
IP law firms have benefited markedly from the lack of pricing transparency. This effectively allows IP lawyers to set the baseline for negotiation on legal fees. If a lawyer thinks the market rate for her services are $500 an hour (and that's what her peers are charging), any discounts or reductions take place from this starting point. In this context, a 10% discount would seem like a "win" for the client, irrespective of the actual business value of the work being done by the lawyer. In fact, value rarely comes enters the conversation between a lawyer and her client.
One must wonder why IP law firms have managed to exercise such pricing power in a world where "everything is negotiable." My opinion is that lawyers have been able to perennially convince clients that price equates with value obtained. And, to validate this ostensible value, a client could look at the opulent downtown offices occupied by his lawyers, as no "cheap" lawyers would reside in such an expensive location. Corporate clients have also seemingly relied on a "wisdom of crowds" theory of IP lawyer value. That is, a law firm wouldn't have so many prestigious clients unless they were good, right?
It is my belief that corporate legal buyers have not pushed IP law firms hard on pricing because it has been too hard to have a conversation about value conferred in the "Black Box" world of IP legal representation. In the business world, if you can't measure it, you can't manage it and IP legal service buyers can neither objectively measure price nor value aspects of their IP legal representation. As a result, corporate IP legal service buyers have failed to develop methods to effectively manage legal costs while still maintaining IP quality, a fact which has been to the great advantage of IP lawyers and law firms.
This is starting to change, however. The current economic environment has made it increasingly untenable for corporations to continue business as usual in regard to how they deal with their IP lawyers. Indeed, a friend of mine who is Chief IP Counsel at a multi-national technology company puts it this way:
I don't care about marble and mahogany. My IP lawyers are welcome to have it, but I won't pay for it. Moreover, I am drastically cutting now in my department but still expected to maximize the value of my company's IP, and I expect my IP lawyers to do the same. Yes, it will hurt our law firms to get less money from my company, but those law firms that walk through this dark valley with me will get my company's enduring loyalty when things ultimately improve. But, if my lawyers don't sacrifice with me, I will drop them, and I will do so no matter how long they have been doing my company's legal work.Another friend of mine, who recently took a job as Chief IP Counsel at a mid-sized chemical company, just put out her company's patent work for competitive bid. She said that never before in her 15 years of corporate legal practice had she seen IP firms more willing to negotiate on price and she was surprised at some of the concessions that were made on price without her asking. Moreover, once she obtained the first round of bids, she went back and asked them to cut again, pitting these law firms against each other on price. Notably, the law firms seeking her work did not push back, presumably because they were willing to do almost anything to get her company's work. At the end of the process, my friend stated that she gave the work to those law firms that she had previous relationships with while at another company, but she was nonetheless able to obtain these same lawyers at a deep discount over what she had paid just last year.
I will note that the firms who got my friend's work are known to be the best and brightest IP law firms in the Southeastern US. These firms were competitors of mine when I was a law firm partner and I purchased their services when I was a senior in-house IP counsel at a major US corporation. These firms did not offer such discounts in the past and, if someone dared to asked for such a deep reduction in costs, no doubt would they likely politely "be shown the door." Times have certainly changed.
Interestingly, however, my Chief IP Counsel friend indicated that her "legacy" firms (that is, those firms that had done her company's work for many years prior to her joining the chemical company) did not come to her and offer her discounts in order to keep the business. Her belief is that they enjoyed "milking" her company for fees and saw no reason to proactively reduce the fees they charged her company, even when they found out she was bidding out the work. This comports with what I saw as an in-house IP lawyer: several prestigious firms apparently historically saw my company as a "cash cow" and charged outrageous fees for legal work of dubious quality as long as no one complained.
These anecdotes should demonstrate to corporate buyers of IP legal services that your current law firms are likely not going to proactively offer your company a discount, even when it would be the right thing to do to help you address the budget pressures you are feeling even while your business teams are placing increasing focus on IP as a corporate asset. And, why should they--does your business proactively lower the costs of products when there is no competitive reason to do so? But, as my Chief IP Counsel friend's competitive bidding experience indicates, and as I can confirm from my in-house experience, most corporate IP legal service buyers should assume that they can save considerable outside IP counsel expense by sending their work out for competitive bid.
Unfortunately, corporate legal managers must themselves be proactive in order to get "the right price" for IP legal counsel, where the right price is what the law firm is willing to charge other corporations for similar legal services that presumably also provide comparable overall business value. (This sort of makes IP legal service pricing seem a bit like air travel--the guy next to you may have paid $100's less than you to fly to the same place.) Moreover, one should not feel reticent about "firing" a long-standing IP law firm if the law firm is not willing to sacrifice some of its income to, as my other Chief IP Counsel friend says "to walk with [you] through this dark valley." Loyalty should be a two-way street.
Law firms should acknowledge that their clients can no longer justify paying for IP legal services without also understanding and justifying the business value obtained. As such, law firms must decide whether they can stand to lose a long term client's business forever if they do not move proactively today to demonstrate the specific value they bring to their clients. Law firms must also be willing to modify their pricing structures to provide measurable relief in this time of economic uncertainty. Moreover, law firms must recognize that their competitors are actively seeking their clients and even the most prestigious firms are willing to provide innovative pricing and practice models to gain business (more on this in a subsequent blog post). It is also worth adding that once a client leaves a law firm because of price, chances are that the client will never come back. A bit of proactive "sacrifice" today may provide immeasurable long term benefit by demonstrating to corporate clients that their loyalty is well-deserved.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Is There an Emerging Business Model for IP Lawyers' Owning So-Called "Patent Trolls"? Only Until Their Corporate Clients Find Out.
Dennis Crouch of The PatentlyO blog recently posted an intriguing tidbit about well-known IP attorneys Carl Moore (Of counsel at Marshall Gerstein); Timothy Vezeau (patent attorney at Katten Muchin); and Nate Scarpelli (who used to and still appears to be associated with Marshall Gerstein). These prominent members of the Chicago IP community appear to be "moon-lighting" from their respective law practices to act as managing partners at a patent holding company called "Virtual Photo Store LLC" ("VPS"). As reported in PatentlyO, VPS is currently involved as defendant in a Declaratory Judgment action. Here is a copy of the DJ Complaint, also posted at PatentlyO. (Interestingly, the Complaint lists VPS' address as that of the Marshall, Gerstein law firm.)
The Complaint alleges that VPS is a non-practicing entity ("NPE") owner of several patents that appear to be related to digital image processing. Mssrs. Moore, Vezeau and Scarpelli allegedly own a company that operates under a business model directed toward enforcement of patent rights alone. In other words, VPS is company in that does not actually make, use or sell a product covered by the claims of the patent, which gives rise to the "NPE" moniker. (Of course, NPEs are more pejoratively referred to as “Patent Trolls.") It then follows that Mssrs. Moore, Vezeau and Scarpelli are managing VPS in its operations as an NPE, even while they are certainly concurrently representing large corporations that are the "victims" of NPE lawsuits.
Admittedly, these prominent Chicago IP lawyers are being innovative in seeking alternative business models to create value from their IP legal expertise and they are to be commended for doing so in this time of decreasing law firm revenues. One must also expect that their respective law firm partners have signed onto this business model and are, perhaps, looking to obtain some aspect of royalties that VPS might obtain from its endeavors to license its patents. However, I also wonder how happy their respective firms' clients would be at learning this turn of events?
Specifically, in a recent conversation with a friend of mine, who is Chief IP Counsel at a Fortune 10 technology company, the issue of his company’s NPE litigation came up. My friend informed me that of 25 patent lawsuits in which his company is currently engaged, they are a defendant in 21. Moreover, each of the plaintiffs in these 21 cases is, as my friend unabashedly states, a "Patent Troll." My friend went on to say that his company spends millions of dollars every year responding to and defending against litigation brought by NPEs. His company’s business and technology leadership must also participate in these litigation activities, which takes them away from what they need to do to keep the business running. Perhaps more significant than the time and money associated with defending these cases is the fact that this NPE litigation introduces risk and uncertainty into the company’s mid- and long-term business plans. Put simply, "Patent Troll" litigation is more than a distraction, it is a serious problem for his company's ability to do business.
My Chief IP Counsel friend indicated to me that his company realizes that the long-standing strategy of fighting these lawsuits one-by-one effectively was the equivalent of "Whack-A-Mole" because, regardless of any affirmative steps his company takes, the NPE lawsuits just keep coming. He and his company's leaders have therefore decided that they need a new strategy to address these increasingly numerous and costly NPE lawsuits. They have decided to hit at the pocketbooks of those they see as facilitators of these onerous litigation events--that is, the IP lawyers who represent the NPEs.
Accordingly, this Fortune 10 technology company’s new tack is to go after the law firms that represent NPEs by pulling lucrative corporate legal work from their law firms if they can determine that these law firms are involved in any way with NPEs. This means that the law firms involved in NPE litigation will not only be rejected as providers of IP legal services, but also will lose the opportunity to obtain wholly unrelated lucrative corporate and litigation work. As indicated by my friend, his company, which spends tens of millions of dollars per year on outside counsel for non-IP matters, will no longer “reward bad behavior” by sending its legal spend to lawyers and law firms that represent NPEs.
The obvious goal of firing law firms that represent NPEs is to limit the ability of these entities to obtain quality legal representation. By refusing to send work to law firms that represent NPEs my friend’s company seeks to ensure that NPEs do not obtain access to the best patent litigation resources. As a result, NPEs will at least have to commit greater resources to locating lawyers who are willing to represent them. In the best case scenario, at least according to my Chief IP Counsel friend, NPEs will effectively be cut off from the country's best patent litigation counsel, thus leaving them with a significant disadvantage when going up against large corporations which, of course, will have access to the best and brightest patent litigators.
Moreover, my friend's Fortune 10 technology company is not the only one taking this strategy to address NPE litigation. In a recent webinar that I attended, Dan McCurdy of Allied Security Trust indicated that members of the AST consortium report to the group what law firms represent NPEs in lawsuits brought against them so that other members can assess whether continued business with law firms that support NPEs is appropriate. It is thus apparent that many corporations that are repeatedly subject to lawsuits brought by NPEs are “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”
So, bringing the conversation back to the lawyer-owned NPE VPS, I must wonder what their respective law firm partners’ reaction will be when my friend's company pulls seemingly unrelated legal work from their law firms as a result of Mssrs. Vezeau, Moore and Scarpelli’s managing ownership interest in a “Patent Troll.” Undoubtedly, it is bad enough for a law firm to merely represent an NPE, so how must it look like to clients when their law firms are effectively in the NPE business. I am sure that my Fortune 10 Chief IP Counsel friend, as well as his savvy corporate IP counsel peers, would accept no explanation for such activity and that he would remove all work from as soon as practicable from any law firm that counted among its partnership ranks lawyers that managed an NPE.
The question arises of why sophisticated and venerable law firms such as Marshall Gerstein and Katten Muchin would allow their partners to engage in activities that could result in significant corporate legal work being pulled from their respective firms. It could be as simple as that they believe no one will find out or, if they do, no one will care because it has not been an issue previously. Indeed, in days past, information such as which law firms and what lawyers were doing and who they represented was generally available, but it was nonetheless difficult to collect and analyze efficiently. Clients thus could not really see into the client rosters of their law firms to see whom else the lawyers represented. To the contrary, it was up to lawyers to decline representation only if there was a direct or potential ethical conflict. In my years of practice at a law firm, neither I nor my fellow partners declined work because a lucrative existing client did not like the business model of a potential new client. While I am sure that some lawyers can point to examples of a new client being sent away due to a potential dislike, I expect that these situations are fairly few and far between.
This is no doubt will be changing as a result of my Chief IP Counsel friend's actions, as well as those of his peers. Law firms need to be prepared for this to happen on a more frequent basis in the future. As online resources, such as the great PatentlyO blog, continue to collect and present valuable insider information, I predict information such as whether a law firm represents or its lawyers actually own an NPE will not just become more available, but also more actionable. As a result, I believe that lawyers who try to play both sides of the fence (e.g. such as by generating significant revenue from both corporations and NPEs or, as with Mssrs. Moore, Vezeau and Scarpelli, actually owning a NPE) will not be able to hide this fact from those who are looking to act on such information.
It will be interesting to see how corporations exert their buying power to limit the ability of NPEs to obtain quality legal representation in the future. Time will tell if corporations can effectively reduce the amount of NPE litigation by hitting corporate lawyers where it hurts--in their pocketbooks. And, I would love to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" when a senior partner at Katten Muchin or Marshall Gerstein loses a major client because of his partner's ownership in VPS.
The Complaint alleges that VPS is a non-practicing entity ("NPE") owner of several patents that appear to be related to digital image processing. Mssrs. Moore, Vezeau and Scarpelli allegedly own a company that operates under a business model directed toward enforcement of patent rights alone. In other words, VPS is company in that does not actually make, use or sell a product covered by the claims of the patent, which gives rise to the "NPE" moniker. (Of course, NPEs are more pejoratively referred to as “Patent Trolls.") It then follows that Mssrs. Moore, Vezeau and Scarpelli are managing VPS in its operations as an NPE, even while they are certainly concurrently representing large corporations that are the "victims" of NPE lawsuits.
Admittedly, these prominent Chicago IP lawyers are being innovative in seeking alternative business models to create value from their IP legal expertise and they are to be commended for doing so in this time of decreasing law firm revenues. One must also expect that their respective law firm partners have signed onto this business model and are, perhaps, looking to obtain some aspect of royalties that VPS might obtain from its endeavors to license its patents. However, I also wonder how happy their respective firms' clients would be at learning this turn of events?
Specifically, in a recent conversation with a friend of mine, who is Chief IP Counsel at a Fortune 10 technology company, the issue of his company’s NPE litigation came up. My friend informed me that of 25 patent lawsuits in which his company is currently engaged, they are a defendant in 21. Moreover, each of the plaintiffs in these 21 cases is, as my friend unabashedly states, a "Patent Troll." My friend went on to say that his company spends millions of dollars every year responding to and defending against litigation brought by NPEs. His company’s business and technology leadership must also participate in these litigation activities, which takes them away from what they need to do to keep the business running. Perhaps more significant than the time and money associated with defending these cases is the fact that this NPE litigation introduces risk and uncertainty into the company’s mid- and long-term business plans. Put simply, "Patent Troll" litigation is more than a distraction, it is a serious problem for his company's ability to do business.
My Chief IP Counsel friend indicated to me that his company realizes that the long-standing strategy of fighting these lawsuits one-by-one effectively was the equivalent of "Whack-A-Mole" because, regardless of any affirmative steps his company takes, the NPE lawsuits just keep coming. He and his company's leaders have therefore decided that they need a new strategy to address these increasingly numerous and costly NPE lawsuits. They have decided to hit at the pocketbooks of those they see as facilitators of these onerous litigation events--that is, the IP lawyers who represent the NPEs.
Accordingly, this Fortune 10 technology company’s new tack is to go after the law firms that represent NPEs by pulling lucrative corporate legal work from their law firms if they can determine that these law firms are involved in any way with NPEs. This means that the law firms involved in NPE litigation will not only be rejected as providers of IP legal services, but also will lose the opportunity to obtain wholly unrelated lucrative corporate and litigation work. As indicated by my friend, his company, which spends tens of millions of dollars per year on outside counsel for non-IP matters, will no longer “reward bad behavior” by sending its legal spend to lawyers and law firms that represent NPEs.
The obvious goal of firing law firms that represent NPEs is to limit the ability of these entities to obtain quality legal representation. By refusing to send work to law firms that represent NPEs my friend’s company seeks to ensure that NPEs do not obtain access to the best patent litigation resources. As a result, NPEs will at least have to commit greater resources to locating lawyers who are willing to represent them. In the best case scenario, at least according to my Chief IP Counsel friend, NPEs will effectively be cut off from the country's best patent litigation counsel, thus leaving them with a significant disadvantage when going up against large corporations which, of course, will have access to the best and brightest patent litigators.
Moreover, my friend's Fortune 10 technology company is not the only one taking this strategy to address NPE litigation. In a recent webinar that I attended, Dan McCurdy of Allied Security Trust indicated that members of the AST consortium report to the group what law firms represent NPEs in lawsuits brought against them so that other members can assess whether continued business with law firms that support NPEs is appropriate. It is thus apparent that many corporations that are repeatedly subject to lawsuits brought by NPEs are “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”
So, bringing the conversation back to the lawyer-owned NPE VPS, I must wonder what their respective law firm partners’ reaction will be when my friend's company pulls seemingly unrelated legal work from their law firms as a result of Mssrs. Vezeau, Moore and Scarpelli’s managing ownership interest in a “Patent Troll.” Undoubtedly, it is bad enough for a law firm to merely represent an NPE, so how must it look like to clients when their law firms are effectively in the NPE business. I am sure that my Fortune 10 Chief IP Counsel friend, as well as his savvy corporate IP counsel peers, would accept no explanation for such activity and that he would remove all work from as soon as practicable from any law firm that counted among its partnership ranks lawyers that managed an NPE.
The question arises of why sophisticated and venerable law firms such as Marshall Gerstein and Katten Muchin would allow their partners to engage in activities that could result in significant corporate legal work being pulled from their respective firms. It could be as simple as that they believe no one will find out or, if they do, no one will care because it has not been an issue previously. Indeed, in days past, information such as which law firms and what lawyers were doing and who they represented was generally available, but it was nonetheless difficult to collect and analyze efficiently. Clients thus could not really see into the client rosters of their law firms to see whom else the lawyers represented. To the contrary, it was up to lawyers to decline representation only if there was a direct or potential ethical conflict. In my years of practice at a law firm, neither I nor my fellow partners declined work because a lucrative existing client did not like the business model of a potential new client. While I am sure that some lawyers can point to examples of a new client being sent away due to a potential dislike, I expect that these situations are fairly few and far between.
This is no doubt will be changing as a result of my Chief IP Counsel friend's actions, as well as those of his peers. Law firms need to be prepared for this to happen on a more frequent basis in the future. As online resources, such as the great PatentlyO blog, continue to collect and present valuable insider information, I predict information such as whether a law firm represents or its lawyers actually own an NPE will not just become more available, but also more actionable. As a result, I believe that lawyers who try to play both sides of the fence (e.g. such as by generating significant revenue from both corporations and NPEs or, as with Mssrs. Moore, Vezeau and Scarpelli, actually owning a NPE) will not be able to hide this fact from those who are looking to act on such information.
It will be interesting to see how corporations exert their buying power to limit the ability of NPEs to obtain quality legal representation in the future. Time will tell if corporations can effectively reduce the amount of NPE litigation by hitting corporate lawyers where it hurts--in their pocketbooks. And, I would love to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" when a senior partner at Katten Muchin or Marshall Gerstein loses a major client because of his partner's ownership in VPS.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
News Items: IAM 250, IP Metrics Benchmarking Study and New Innovation Blog for Innovation Entrepreneurs
Regular readers of the IP Asset Maximizer blog will note that my postings have been a bit sparse lately. I have been taking some time off with my family, and will be continuing to do so until later in June 2009. I appreciate your patience. I have some timely news items to share in the interim, however.
IAM 250 Awards
I am proud to announce that I have been named one of the IAM 250 for 2009. This award is given by IAM Magazine to those non-corporate IP Strategists judged by their peers as the leaders in IP Strategy. With Duncan Bucknell, Suzanne Harrison, Kevin Rivette, Andrew Watson and many others whom I respect greatly on the list, it is a great honor to appear on this inaugural list of the world's leaders in IP Strategy.
IP Metrics Survey
Kate Shore of IPCapital Group let me know that her company has developed a benchmarking survey to assess how companies are using metrics and key performance indicators in relation to their IP portfolios and processes. Details are found in the IPCapital Group blog. The survey closes on June 17.
IAM 250 Awards
I am proud to announce that I have been named one of the IAM 250 for 2009. This award is given by IAM Magazine to those non-corporate IP Strategists judged by their peers as the leaders in IP Strategy. With Duncan Bucknell, Suzanne Harrison, Kevin Rivette, Andrew Watson and many others whom I respect greatly on the list, it is a great honor to appear on this inaugural list of the world's leaders in IP Strategy.
IP Metrics Survey
Kate Shore of IPCapital Group let me know that her company has developed a benchmarking survey to assess how companies are using metrics and key performance indicators in relation to their IP portfolios and processes. Details are found in the IPCapital Group blog. The survey closes on June 17.
New Blog for Innovators
Over the past several months, the folks at Slingshot Product Development Group have referred to me a number of entrepreneurs who are seeking to introduce their new product ideas into the market. Slingshot works with corporations and entrepreneurs in all facets of product development, that is, from early stage ideation to manufacturing services. My services in this regard have effectively been in the realm of "IP Business Coaching." Some of these entrepreneurs held viable ideas, but others I had to tell that their product idea could not be protected so as to make it likely that they would have success in the market. To a client, however, each of these persons obtained valuable insight into the overall market potential of their ideas as a result of my working with them to deconstruct their product idea into an analysis of the innovation they were seeking to address, as opposed to merely looking at their idea for its inventive aspects.
In the time that I have gotten to know the Slingshot folks, I have been impressed with their "out of the box" thinking about innovation, particularly how IP should fit into the process at the earliest stages. Put simply, Slingshot "gets" that patents don't matter unless the product will sell, which is a depth of understanding about the patent process that other innovation professionals do not yet broadly process. Moreover, Slingshot understands that IP information can significantly enhance the product ideation process to result in greater overall ROI on innovation investment.
Given my positive experience with Slingshot, I gladly accepted their offer to cross-post relevant content to their new innovation blog, which will go live shortly. Readers of the IP Asset Maximizer blog will recognize the content at the Slingshot blog because it will also appear here. I am nonetheless pleased to have a new forum to spread the word about IP Strategy to those who do not normally interact with the world of IP. Those of us who are leading the way in spreading the word on IP Strategy understand that a significant impediment to broader implementation of asset-directed IP processes (as opposed to the traditional rights-based IP processes) is communication to those who need to know, that is, business professionals. I am looking forward to this new opportunity for dialogue with those who have the most to gain from implementation of robust IP Strategies within their respective organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
