In House Counsel

Evaluating a Company's Patent Position

In December, 2012, ExecSense, the world's largest publisher of professional webinars, eBooks & more, published my eBook, Evaluating a Company’s Patent Position. The following is the Executive Summary:

There are many reasons that patent attorneys may be asked to conduct diligence reviews of a company’s patent estate. Investors may seek to take an equity position. Banks may seek to extend loans. Other companies may seek to acquire the company, its assets, or start a joint venture. Evaluating a company’s patent position is a complex matter with many moving parts. It is much like peeling an onion where each bit of information may open up a new line of inquiry. While some parts of the process should be accomplished early, there is no strict chronological order in which the steps of the investigations unfold.

Broadly speaking, the steps in a patent diligence evaluation require multiple lines of inquiry. The attorneys investigate the company’s patent rights and the content of the underlying patent families. Also, the company’s products, services, R&D, and commercial timelines – as well as those of its competitors – must be ascertained. These should be compared with the company’s patented and pending claims. Also, the attorneys should investigate the validity and enforceability of the company’s patents and any relevant litigation. All this should be accomplished while preserving confidential information and the attorney-client privilege.

This chapter is not a do-it-yourself guide on patent diligence. There are too many complex issues and concerns about the facts, the law, confidentiality, and the attorney client privilege for anybody but a competent attorney – or team of attorneys – to tackle. Rather, I hope that the following narrative helps educate the consumers of patent diligence.

To read the whole book, you can find it at the following links:
ExecSense.com
Amazon.com




comments powered by Disqus
Comments

Publish And Perish: The Tension Between Publishing And Patenting

In re Droge serves as a cautionary reminder to those who manage the publication policies of inventors. In this case, one of the inventor’s own prior publications was used to find that the claimed invention was obvious. Thus, it is critical to manage inventor publication activities to minimize the risk of creating prior art against your own patents. Some guiding principles are provided for patent professionals or others that seek to manage publication policies. Read More...
Comments