Ipr In Corporate Governance Of Ip Assets.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in Corporate Governance of IP Assets
Introduction
Corporate governance of IP assets refers to the structured management of intellectual property (IP) within a corporation. It ensures that IP is protected, monetized, and aligned with business strategy, while minimizing risk of infringement or litigation.
IP assets include:
Patents – Technological innovations
Trademarks – Brand names, logos, slogans
Copyrights – Software, content, databases
Trade Secrets – Proprietary processes or formulas
Domain Names and Digital Assets – Online presence and digital brands
Corporate governance in IP involves:
IP policy formulation – Guidelines for creation, ownership, and commercialization.
IP portfolio management – Cataloging patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.
Risk management – Monitoring potential infringements and defending IP.
Valuation and monetization – Licensing, assignments, or strategic use.
Compliance and reporting – Ensuring IP compliance and integrating IP into corporate strategy.
Importance of Corporate Governance of IP Assets
Protecting competitive advantage – IP is often a company’s core value.
Revenue generation – Licensing, franchising, or selling IP can be a significant revenue source.
Litigation readiness – Strong governance helps defend IP in court efficiently.
Investor confidence – Investors value companies with well-managed IP portfolios.
M&A strategy – IP valuation is critical in mergers and acquisitions.
Key Legal Issues in Corporate Governance of IP Assets
Ownership disputes – Patents, trademarks, or trade secrets developed by employees.
Infringement lawsuits – Ensuring proactive protection of IP.
Licensing and royalty management – Agreements with third parties.
Cross-border IP governance – Managing IP in multiple jurisdictions.
Valuation and reporting – Accurate accounting of IP in corporate balance sheets.
Case Laws Demonstrating Corporate Governance of IP Assets
1. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2012–2018, USA)
Issue:
Patent and design infringement, corporate management of IP assets.
Facts:
Apple claimed Samsung copied iPhone design and user interface.
Apple’s corporate governance ensured all patents, designs, and trademarks were registered and documented.
Judgment:
Courts ruled partially in favor of Apple, awarding damages.
The case highlighted the strategic importance of maintaining a comprehensive IP portfolio.
Relevance:
Shows how structured corporate governance allows effective IP litigation and protects company value.
2. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. (2013, USA & EU)
Issue:
Corporate licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs) and royalty management.
Facts:
Microsoft and Motorola held patents essential to mobile standards.
Dispute over royalty rates for licensing these patents to third parties.
Judgment:
Courts enforced FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing.
Motorola could not demand excessive royalties.
Relevance:
Illustrates the importance of corporate IP governance for licensing strategies.
Companies must have structured royalty management and licensing policies.
3. DuPont v. Kolon Industries (2011, USA)
Issue:
Trade secret misappropriation and corporate IP protection.
Facts:
DuPont’s Kevlar manufacturing process was stolen by Kolon Industries.
DuPont maintained a structured IP governance system with NDAs, restricted access, and monitoring.
Judgment:
Kolon found liable for trade secret theft.
Court awarded substantial damages.
Relevance:
Highlights corporate governance practices for protecting trade secrets, including internal controls and compliance systems.
4. IBM v. NCR Corp. (2007, USA)
Issue:
Patent management and joint R&D governance.
Facts:
IBM and NCR collaborated on ATM technology.
Dispute over patent ownership and commercialization.
Judgment:
Courts upheld joint ownership, requiring formal cross-licensing agreements.
IP governance structures ensured that portfolios were properly documented for litigation and licensing.
Relevance:
Demonstrates how corporate governance frameworks prevent disputes in joint IP projects.
5. Cadbury Schweppes v. FBI Foods (India, 2007)
Issue:
Trademark enforcement and corporate IP management.
Facts:
Cadbury discovered unauthorized use of its chocolate brand in India.
Cadbury’s governance ensured active monitoring, registrations, and enforcement mechanisms.
Judgment:
Courts ruled in favor of Cadbury, stopping the infringing use.
Relevance:
Highlights corporate governance in trademark monitoring, enforcement, and brand protection.
6. Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems (2011, USA)
Issue:
Ownership disputes in corporate-university joint research IP.
Facts:
Stanford researcher signed agreements with Roche, claiming ownership of patents.
University maintained policies for IP assignment from employees.
Judgment:
Court emphasized importance of clear assignment policies in corporate governance.
Relevance:
Shows that strong corporate IP policies prevent employee-created IP disputes.
7. Google Inc. v. Oracle America, Inc. (2014–2021, USA)
Issue:
Software copyright and corporate IP management.
Facts:
Dispute over use of Java APIs in Android software.
Google maintained a structured IP team managing code licensing and compliance.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled Google’s use of APIs was fair use.
Highlighted importance of corporate governance in IP risk assessment and compliance.
Relevance:
Corporate IP governance includes risk assessment, licensing compliance, and litigation readiness.
Key Principles of Corporate IP Governance
IP Policy and Strategy
Clear policies for creation, ownership, licensing, and commercialization.
IP Portfolio Management
Maintain accurate records of patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
Risk Management
Regular audits, monitoring for infringement, and enforcement mechanisms.
Employee and Contractor Agreements
Assignment of inventions, NDAs, and confidentiality clauses.
Licensing and Monetization Framework
Structured royalty systems and licensing agreements.
Litigation and Dispute Readiness
Ensure documentation and governance structures facilitate legal action when necessary.
Challenges in Corporate IP Governance
Valuation of IP assets – Difficult to assign monetary value to patents and trademarks.
Global operations – Cross-border IP laws require sophisticated management.
Integration in business strategy – IP must align with corporate goals.
Employee and contractor disputes – Ownership claims can arise if policies are unclear.
Monitoring and enforcement – Requires dedicated teams and systems.
Conclusion
Corporate governance of IP assets is essential for:
Protecting competitive advantage
Generating revenue through licensing
Preventing disputes over ownership
Ensuring compliance and risk management
RELATED Blog
comments