Author Archive

Share via email

By: Bill Harding

So your company would like to license its trademark to another company.  Sounds simple, right?

Wrong.  A legal “twilight zone” exists between 1) a licensor adequately policing the licensed use of its trademark, and 2) a franchisor providing significant assistance to or exercising control of a licensee’s business.

A trademark identifies goods to consumers by both their origin and their quality.  The federal Lanham Act requires a licensor of a registered mark to control the quality and uniformity of goods and services associated with the licensed mark to ensure the mark is not used by a licensee in “such a manner as to deceive the public.”  Failure of the trademark owner to exercise sufficient control may constitute abandonment of the mark and result in loss of trademark protection.  A license without sufficient quality controls is termed a “naked” license.

But by taking steps to exercise sufficient control over licensee use of a mark, the licensor may accidentally fashion a trademark license that constitutes an “accidental” franchise agreement.  Such a mistake may be very costly for a mark owner, as applicable franchise laws may impose unexpected registration and/or disclosure requirements on the licensor, and/or may regulate important aspects of the business relationship between the license parties, such as termination and non-renewal of the agreement.  The parties to a trademark license agreement cannot avoid an accidental franchise by calling their agreement by another name or by including provision language that disclaims the existence of a franchise.

Defining “Franchise”

Although federal and state jurisdictions that regulate franchises vary in their approaches, creation of a franchise generally consists of three elements:

1) grant of use of the franchisor’s mark in association with franchisee’s business,

2) a franchise fee paid to the franchisor by the franchisee, and

3) control exerted by the franchisor over the franchisee.

If all three statutory elements are present, a franchise relationship exists regardless of the intentions of the parties.

Be careful out there, aspiring trademark licensors.  Better yet, get a lawyer!

Share via email

Business assets have value.  Understanding the value of assets on hand is important to starting a business, to conducting a business, and to dissolving a business.  Ironically, many business leaders who are diligent about routinely tracking the value of hard assets, like a truck or a building, have no similar discipline in place to measure and monitor the value of the business’s intellectual assets.

Why To Value?

Many business eventualities may bring about a need to estimate the value of a company’s intellectual assets.  The following are just a few examples of common business questions that may imply a need to perform a valuation on a company’s intellectual assets :

- Is now the time to sell a particular asset (or even the entire business) while its value is high?

- Is our company earning a reasonable royalty (or charging an optimal price) for an asset given current market realities?

- How much is a fair settlement amount in exchange for dropping a lawsuit for infringement of an asset?

- Should we build a new intellectual asset that the company needs, or instead seek to buy such an asset from another?

- Is now the right time to drive our current intellectual asset to end of life by introducing the next generation replacement?

- May the company leverage an intellectual asset by using it as security to borrow needed funds?

- What are the tax implications of a given transaction involving an intellectual asset, or of the fluctuation in the value of the asset over the past year?

- Is the company in compliance with all regulatory requirements that apply to a certain transaction involving an intellectual asset?

How To Value?

Several valuation models are commonly used to estimate the value of intellectual assets, whether in a business context or in a court of law (e.g., damages calculation).  Furthermore, more than one model may be applicable in a given set of circumstances.  The following are some of the most commonly used valuation models:

 

  • Market Approach – the fair market value of an asset is ascertained by researching the real-world marketplace for transactions involving sales, listings, and offers to purchase or license comparable assets

 

  • Cost Approach – value is based on the cost to obtain an asset of equal value, taking into account one or more of reproduction cost (building an exact replica of the asset), replacement cost (recreating the functionality of an asset), and cost avoidance

 

  • Income Approach – value is calculated from expected returns attributable to an asset, based on the present value of expected income to be earned (e.g., license royalties)

 

Who Can Value?

Valuation is more an exercise in accounting and/or finance than it is of law.  Traditionally the purview of accounting professionals like Certified Public Accountants (CPAs), the field has more recently spawned certification programs specifically for valuation practitioners.  Recommendation:  When valuing intellectual assets, seek the help of a specially-trained and experienced professional.  In almost all valuation scenarios, the stakes are too high to get it wrong.

Share via email

I commend those of you who read my last post, yet returned despite my talk of “probabilities” and “cost estimation.”  The reward for your courage is this:  NO math!

Plus, a bonus:  Because the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) website does a good job summarizing the application of risk management techniques to the prioritization of intellectual assets (IA) for management attention, I will keep my discussion of the topic brief.

Predicting The Future

Let’s face it:  No one has a crystal ball that’s any better than the next guy’s.  So, when a group of IA auditors try to predict, for example, the chances that a competitor will infringe on a company’s patent, their arguing over setting the probability of that event at a hard number of, say, 78% versus 72% is folly.   For decision making purposes, a coarse measure based on a scale of simply High, Medium, and Low may suffice.  The prioritization discussion could sound something like this:

Auditor 1 says, “We have three formidable competitors in this particular area of technology, and one of them has a history of reengineering others’ products.  So, we should consider the probability that we will be infringed upon by at least one of these competitors to be HIGH.”

Auditor 2 responds, “True, but our company’s development of the next generation product line for this technology is on target for general availability in 10 months.  We literally plan to drive our current technology to end of life with this new release.  Therefore, the cost to the company if a competitor infringes upon our current technology for a lifespan of nor more than 10 months is relatively LOW.”

Auditor 1, “I hear you.  But because infringement unchecked, even for that short period, may result in conversion of some of our customers who may not come back for our new release, let’s agree the likely cost to the company is MEDIUM.”

Everything’s Important

After a few crisp brainstorming sessions, an IA audit team should be able to present executive management with a list of intellectual asset challenges prioritized by risk.  Hopefully management will find the number of assets at risk with HIGH probability and HIGH cost to be a manageable subset of the full list of IA challenges.

(I suspect you know what is coming next:)  What if all of the IA challenges identified by the audit come back prioritized as HIGH probability and HIGH cost?  That could mean many things:

1) Maybe the audit team did not fully understand the events and or the costs they were asked to analyze; therefore, it’s not the occurrence of an event nor the cost of occurrence that is of HIGH probability, but instead it is their fear of the unknown that is HIGH.  Recommendation:  Don’t manage to fear.

2) Maybe the audit team delegated their duty of analysis to other stakeholders in the company who, predictably (no pun intended), consider their individual parochial interests to be of high priority.  Recommendation:  Don’t manage to competing parochial interests.

3)  Maybe all of the IA challenges in the company really are HIGH priority and HIGH cost.  Recommendation:  Don’t react to being “hopelessly surrounded” by attacking simultaneously in all directions.

In any (or even none) of these eventualities, consider further prioritization of IA actions by the cost (e.g., time, effort, money) and/or by the likelihood of success (“low hanging fruit”) of proposed remedies to the various risks.

Hey, any plan is better than no plan at all.

 

 

Share via email

The story is all too familiar.  A company executive suspects some specific intellectual assets of the business (say, a corporate logo, or maybe some in-house software) are under-defended, undervalued, and/or under-exploited.  So the executive sponsors an intellectual asset (IA) audit to help her decide how to shore up these few troublesome assets, only to learn the company may have dozens or even hundreds of potential intellectual assets suffering from various degrees of underutilization or, worse yet, neglect.  Where should this executive begin to fix her newfound IAM problem?  A good first step is to remember the famous quote attributed to David Packard, “More companies die of indigestion than starvation.”

Risk Management

Our overwhelmed executive should prioritize commitment of attention and resources to those assets which promise to best support the ends of the company.  One approach to prioritizing her company’s IAM challenges is to apply basic risk management principles.  Risk can be defined as a function of the probability of an event and its consequences, and is commonly represented in the following formula:

R = P x C

where R = Risk, P = Probability of an event, and C = Cost/consequence of event occurrence.  The event may be an occurrence outside the control of the entity bearing the risk, or it may be an action or activity chosen by an entity (including the choice of inaction) that will influence a consequence. The consequences may include impacts that are either negative or positive.

IAM and Risk

In an earlier post, I summarized the IAM Value Hierarchy as a continuum of IAM maturity levels that an organization may attain.  How mature an organization is in its management of its intellectual assets may dictate how the organization applies risk analysis to its prioritization of business actions.  Below, in no particular order, are some questions that an IA audit team may ask itself to characterize the risk to assets for a company operating at the lower levels of the IAM Value Hierarchy.  Each question is annotated as being either probability-centric (P) or consequence-centric (C).

Defensive Level

(P)  What is the probability a known competitor may sue our company for infringement?

(C)  What is the likely cost to the business if a competitor could exclude us from making, using, or selling our product?

(P)  What is the probability that known entities may infringe upon our exclusive rights?

(C)  What cost (e.g., lost sales) would the company incur from an infringement of its exclusive rights?

(C)  What damages could the company likely pursue in a legal action against an infringer?

(P)  What is the probability the company would prevail in an infringement action?

(C)  What is the likely cost to the company to litigate an infringement action?

Cost Center Level

(C)  What is the range of costs the company could incur to protect a key asset (e.g., successful patent prosecution)?

(P)  What is the probability the unacceptably high-cost scenarios identified in the range above each may come to pass?

(C)  What is the cost to the company to retain a certain employee who is a key contributor to existing intellectual assets of the company?

(P)  What is the probability that loss of that certain key employee will lead to a competitor hiring that employee to gain access to intellectual assets?

(C)  What would be the cost to the company to put into place more robust protection (e.g., trade secret handling discipline) around certain intellectual assets?

Profit Center Level

(P)  What is the probability that a key asset is not being exploited to its full potential?

(C)  What is the estimated opportunity cost to the company for less than full exploitation of that asset?

(P)  What is probability (timeline) the intellectual asset is nearing its peak value in the market?

(P)  What is the probability (timeline) the intellectual asset is nearing obsolescence?

(C)  What is value of the asset if sold at its projected market peak?

(C)  What is the cost to the company if it misses the window to sell the asset at its peak?

I know what you’re thinking:  All of this talk of “probabilities” and “cost estimation” sounds a lot like … (gulp) … math!  But before you add me to your “do not read” list, please check out next week’s post titled “Skip The Math.”

Share via email

Your company has decided to conduct an audit to take inventory of its intellectual assets (IA), and has an idea of the level of abstraction at which it will identify those assets.  So where should the company start seining for IA information?  The following tips may be helpful.

Start At The Top

Audits are almost never organically-spawned, academic exercises, but instead are typically directed by executive management edict and conducted for a specific business purpose.  The person responsible for spearheading an intellectual asset (IA) audit should check first with the sponsoring executive to learn the rationale behind the project and the desired  “end game” of the effort.  For example, some recent (even active) legal action may have prompted the audit request, so the IA auditor must be prepared to tailor his focus to deliver precisely the litigation support the company needs.  Also, the executive in charge of the business unit to be audited typically has unique insight into the list of key players in the company from whom the auditor will likely need to glean information.  The auditor should get this list early so as to avoid wasting his time and that of others by talking to the wrong people during the audit process.

Just A Formality

If the company can produce proof of intellectual property rights (IPR) recognized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or by some other domestic or foreign authority, that IP certainly goes on the auditor’s intellectual assets list.  Record of maintenance or annuity fees paid to any recognizing authority is a good clue that IPR may be in place.  However, the IA auditor should not content himself to review just formalities such as grants of patents and registrations of trademarks and copyrights.  For example, a closer look at the file history for a patent may uncover that the company claimed less than it had a right to claim in the patent.  Such potential IPR “left on the table” should be brought to the audit sponsor’s attention.  Also, a quick inspection of the company’s marking practices may reveal that the company is not properly marking its patented products, or not displaying trademark and/or copyright symbols where needed.

Follow The Money

Where the IA auditor finds money changing hands, he will likely find an asset as the subject of that exchange.  Certain sales artifacts, such as license agreements (royalties change hands) or assignment documents (purchase price changes hands), may explicitly define the subject of those exchanges as intellectual assets.  Other sales artifacts may be more subtle.  For example, where the auditor finds product sales invoices and/or service contracts, there are likely intellectual assets such as product designs, service offering names, original creative expressions, and even customer contact information.  The auditor should also review the company’s marketing artifacts (e.g., advertising expenditures, sales literature, and website content) to ascertain what IA the company is trying to sell, even if it has not yet succeeded in doing so.

Meet The Family

The IP auditor should assess the extent of the company’s rights to any IA created by its employees.  First, invention records such as engineering notebooks may help identify which company employees contribute as inventors.  For these employees, review signed employee agreements, paying particular attention to IP ownership and confidentiality clauses.  Also, look for any documentation of explicit transfer of ownership rights via execution of an assignment.  Finally, the IP auditor should check employee termination letters for language governing handling of trade secrets.

Fences and Neighbors

Artifacts that define a company’s relationships with external entities are possible sources of information on intangibles that the company considers intellectual assets.  Nondisclosure agreements (NDA), for example, may identify specific information to be shared (and protected from further disclosure) by the signatories to the agreement.  Correspondence between entities regarding enforcement of ones purported IP rights against the other is a strong clue as to a company’s belief that it owns a particular intellectual asset.  Also, the fact that outside funding (e.g., industry, federal grant, sponsored research) was used during development of an intellectual asset should prompt the IA auditor to investigate the potential that the funding entity may retain some subset of the bundle of rights associated with that IP.

Spreading The Wealth

What a company commits time and money to communicating, both inside and outside the company, is an indicator that the subject of that communication is of value.  How a company communicates regarding its IA, and especially its trade secrets, can impact the extent to which those assets may be legally protected.  The IP auditor should inquire as to the means employed to publicize the details of an asset both outside the company (e.g., publications, seminars, and trade shows) and inside the company (e.g., in-house training, either formal or informal).  For intangibles that the company specifically identifies as not for public disclosure, the IP auditor should assess protection procedures in place, such as use of access controls (e.g., password protection, locked file storage), visitor controls (e.g., temporary badge procedures), and copy controls (e.g., shredding practices).

Whew!  With all these possible sources of input for an audit, the IA auditor needs to prioritize those which promise to best support the ends of the executive sponsor.  More on that next time.


Subscribe

Login



SATURDAY, MAY 25, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 11085 access attempts in the last 7 days.