What prompted you to found FIN IP Group, and what advice do you have for others considering a similar path?

The need for higher quality services in the market led me to found FIN IP Group. Throughout my career in intellectual property, I frequently encountered licensing preparation and analysis that was hastily carried out and lacked expertise. Further, most of the third-party work came from practitioners with little to no licensing experience. I knew that by refining my craft and building an incredible team, we could offer clients industry-leading services. My advice to anyone looking to start an IP service business is to identify an offering that combines your competitive advantage with your clients’ needs. From there, focus on perfecting your craft and delivering superior results; the rest will fall into place. 

Based on your experience navigating the financial intricacies of acquisitions, how is the current M&A landscape hitting patent valuation practices, and how do you expect these trends might evolve in the next five years?

With funding for deals becoming scarcer and facing increased scrutiny from investment committees, I anticipate that IP valuations will require greater diligence and more refined assumptions. As a result, IP valuation outcomes are likely to become more conservative overall. Decision makers will be more selective in choosing valuators, placing greater emphasis on experience and expertise.

What are the biggest challenges facing your clients at present, and how are you helping them to overcome these?

The greatest challenge facing our clients – and the industry as a whole – is licensee hold out, when a licensee delays or avoids signing a licence agreement. This often occurs due to asymmetry of information between the licensor and the licensee, making it difficult to reach an agreement. At FIN IP Group, we help bridge this gap by creating pricing and economic proposals that are both pragmatic and grounded in sound theory and data. Additionally, we equip our clients with the information they need to present a strong business case to their C-suite for approval.

Amid the unstandardised nature of IP valuation, do you think companies should have to disclose value of their intellectual property on the balance sheet, and why?

While companies already recognise acquired intellectual property and often capture R&D costs on the balance sheet, they should not recognise internally developed assets. Including a company’s intellectual property on the balance sheet can be valuable to investors, but it comes with challenges. The complexity of valuing intellectual property introduces grey areas surrounding acceptable practices, which are compounded by incentives for companies and experts to inflate IP value to attract investors. This is especially problematic when valuating and reporting on internally developed assets. The purpose of the balance sheet is to provide a clear snapshot of a company’s financial position at a given point in time. Overstating IP value could mislead investors into overestimating a company’s worth or solvency. Without an arm’s-length transaction with another party, it is easy for companies to misrepresent their IP value, leading to an inaccurate balance sheet. For these reasons, I believe that internally developed intellectual property should not be disclosed on the balance sheet.