As founder and CEO, what is the key to your organisation’s success?

I believe that we have been successful for several reasons. We believe in our patents’ strength and have worked hard to communicate this to the market. We will not shy away from asserting our rights. However, I think we are very reasonable when it comes to licensing and are always open to discussing our portfolios. Maintaining a good relationship and reputation in the marketplace is certainly one of these keys to success. 

What, in your view, is the best strategy for demonstrating the value of patent portfolios, and why is it so effective? 

Engaging potential licensees is the best way to demonstrate the value of a portfolio. We put significant effort into contacting potential licensees and explaining how the portfolio relates to their products or services. Opening lines of communication and being available to respond to any enquiries or feedback from potential licensees is one path to license the potential markets making use of our portfolios. 

What trends have you observed over the past 30 years in the licensing realm, particularly when it comes to how the subject is approached in-house?

The licensing world is always shifting. One change I have noticed relates to large multinational corporate IP departments and how these companies deal with entering into or evaluating a potential patent licence. At the same time, the make-up of the experiences and training within these IP departments has evolved. I started out working for multinationals and trade associations; the IP departments I worked in and those I observed had an even mix of lawyers and businesspeople. 

The licensing professionals in these departments often came from the companies themselves or elsewhere. In many cases, the criteria for the position involved a technical or business background – it was common for the head of an IP department to be someone with extensive experience in that company or general technology area but who was not a lawyer by training. Litigation was often managed by a licensing professional whose experience or education was in business or engineering rather than law. 

Things are not the same today – they have changed substantially. Most of the large multinational companies’ IP departments that I negotiate or meet with are staffed exclusively with lawyers. There does not seem to be a businessperson anywhere to be found. The lawyers in these departments come from large outside-counsel firms, government positions or other in-house positions. 

It is true that, in most cases, there is a business unit that must agree with any licence, litigation or settlement. However, the messaging is likely critical. The way that a litigator will explain a licensing issue is different than how an MBA would. The decisionmakers in such business units are now being presented with the same issue through a litigator’s lens. Perhaps a more diverse perspective would be beneficial and more efficient in the long run. 

As such, these IP departments are stocked with people who do not necessarily have any business experience or training – they only have litigation experience. I think this is a major reason why licensing has become so litigation-based today. Twenty years ago, it was common to have companies enter into a licence without any litigation. Today it is the opposite – it is very uncommon for a multinational to enter into a licence without substantial litigation. 

Abraham Maslow famously said: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” To paraphrase, if all you know is litigation, then every licensing problem looks like a lawsuit and every issue is something you believe needs to be litigated.