December 2015
NRG Magazine
Executives of patent valuation companies regularly report that when they when they sift through the patent portfolios of target companies, they have difficulty finding valuable patents. They report that invariably, patents miss the mark. But what is the mark? What is the goal of a patent anyway? Isn’t it enough to be able to simply say that your product is patented?
True patent value does not come from being able to say “we have a patent on our product” or “we have 25 patents.” True patent value comes when competitors, who examine your patents, are unable to offer a competing product because your patents block them.
What most start-ups and established companies do not realize is that it is relative easy to get a patent, but it is much more difficult to obtain a patent that truly blocks competitors. As a result, start-ups tend to unnecessarily invest large amounts in developing patents that add little value to the company, but instead, simply add expense.
This occurs because start-ups tend to make one very common mistake. They protect their inventions instead of protecting their businesses. Let’s look at an example. A particular cybertech start-up was the first to recognize a correlation between a certain pattern of incoming data and the likelihood of an attack. They developed a unique algorithm to identify the pattern, and patented it. The product became highly successful, and in a short period, the start-up had more than 100 employees and more revenue than it ever expected. Competitors took notice, realized that the company patented its algorithm, and hired a patent litigator to figure out how to offer a competing product while avoiding the patent.
It didn’t take the litigator long to find a way around the patent. After all, that’s what litigators do. He recognized that the start-up protected what it thought was its invention: an algorithm for identifying the pattern. So the litigator guided his client to find another algorithm to identify the same pattern. The competitor is now free to offer a competing product.
What mistake did the start-up make? It protected its invention without more broadly thinking about protecting its business. The start-up should have asked: what will competitors need to do in order to compete with us? In answering that question, the start-up would have realized that it needed to block competitors from identifying the pattern using any algorithm, rather than simply the company’s preferred algorithm.
This seems like a simple concept, but most start-ups miss this mark because they are “invention focused” in their patenting, when they should be “business focused.” Companies that work with a business-focused patent litigator during the development of their patents are more likely to end up with patents that actually add value to the company.
Originally printed in NRG Magazine. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.