What inspired you to pursue a career in intellectual property valuation, and what advice would you give someone considering a similar path?

My career in IP valuation evolved from a general interest in the field; my location in Silicon Valley sparked my interest in technology and innovation. Early in my career, I worked in litigation damages and was later on exposed to technology-driven environments (eg, the start-up and university licensing ecosystems), which drew me to the intersection of business, innovation and legal frameworks that intellectual property represents. IP valuation has become a focal point as it allows for combining analytical thinking with market strategy. For those considering a career in IP valuation, I recommend building a foundation in multiple areas – finance, business, law and technology – since IP assets are inherently interdisciplinary. Being well-rounded and openminded is essential for success in this field.

As president of your organisation, what would you say is the key to effective leadership?

Effective leadership is about empowering the team while fostering an environment where continuous learning and collaboration thrive. At Foresight Valuation Group, we encourage team members to engage in open discussions and contribute ideas, as IP valuation and strategy are areas that benefit from diverse perspectives. Additionally, I find that remaining adaptable to change is essential as the IP landscape is always evolving. 

As a leader, I strive to exemplify a high standard of work and integrity and focus on clear, direct communication, which helps to build trust within the team and with our clients. This approach helps us to remain both innovative and effective as a consulting group. We were working remotely even before covid-19, and I find that building a team based on trust allows us to work together successfully from any location.

How do you predict the IP valuation landscape to evolve over the next five years, and what are you doing to prepare to manage this?

I expect to see a growing role for data-driven tools and AI in IP valuation, especially as these tools are increasingly capable of handling at scale some of the time-consuming elements of IP valuation, such as reviewing large portfolios of patents and creating some initial sorting and segmentation. I strongly believe that a human element is always needed to make any IP analysis more robust, but AI can help prioritise the review and save time on some of the manual legwork. Additionally, I see a rise in non-patented assets as subject for valuation, as they are increasingly contributing to a company’s IP strategy. One such asset class is digital assets and data, which can be highly valuable and are protected by softer IP rights, such as copyrights and trade secrets.

Amid the current gap in financial reporting for intangibles, do you think companies should be required to disclose the value of their intangible assets on the balance sheet, and why?

In today’s economy, intangible assets (eg, intellectual property, brand value and proprietary technology) often make up a substantial portion of a company’s overall worth. However, the current gap in financial reporting leaves investors and stakeholders with an incomplete view of a company’s value and potential. Disclosing intangible asset values could enhance transparency and improve decision making for investors, helping them to more accurately assess a company’s growth prospects and risks. That being said, accounting regulators would need to determine the basis for presenting intangibles on the books, which will probably not be fair value but some variation of a cost-based value. Intangible assets can be volatile and subject to regulatory and judicial changes, and companies may need to account for this through testing for impairment. 

What recent decisions or legislative developments are having the biggest impact on patent strategy in the United States right now?

One of the most impactful areas in patent strategy today is the intersection of AI and IP law, especially when it comes to the issue of AI-driven inventorship. Recent rulings affirming that patents can only be granted to human inventors have sparked ongoing debates, particularly for tech-forward sectors where AI-driven inventions are integral to the business model. This limitation raises questions about how companies can protect inventions in which AI plays a significant role. Additionally, the USPTO has been working to provide clearer guidance on the patentability of AI-related technologies, particularly around issues of patent eligibility, novelty and non-obviousness as they relate to complex algorithms and machine-learning models. 

Efrat Kasznik

President
[email protected]

Efrat Kasznik is president of Foresight Valuation Group, a Silicon Valley-based IP valuation and start-up advisory firm. She is also a lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business, where she teaches MBA and executive education classes. Ms Kasznik is on the board of LES USA and Canada. She graduated with an BA in accounting and economics from the Hebrew University in Israel and obtained an MBA from the Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, California.