Boots: IP audits, management programs have value

April 19, 2017
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Boots Boots

By Daniel L. Boots

Intellectual property has become increasingly complex and inevitably intertwined with many aspects of any organization in today’s fast-moving economy. Sources suggest the value of U.S. IP assets currently exceeds other tangible assets; the largest assets in many tech companies today is indeed their IP. Organizations are thus wise to implement IP management policies tailored to their businesses. This article highlights an audit program that enables an organization to better “mine” its IP through the identification and development of those assets, while also identifying potential IP liabilities. An IP audit maximizes the value of the organization’s IP assets, mitigates IP liabilities and supports an effective IP management program, which is often made an integral part of its strategic planning. Regardless of an organization’s focus, it should have a thorough understanding of its IP environment.

The IP audit primarily involves identification and classification of IP assets and liabilities, and an analysis of existing internal processes for managing those assets and minimizing liabilities. IP assets include rights held under patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade dress and trade secrets. Licensing rights, under which one company uses the IP of another, are also included. (The classification of IP assets through an IP audit is distinguishable from an IP evaluation, where assets are valuated and assigned monetary values.) An important goal of an audit is to recommend an IP strategy to manage the organization’s IP moving forward and to minimize risk by monitoring use of third-party IP. An IP audit should also be used in any merger, acquisition, IPO, investment or re-capitalization transaction to help determine the organization’s true value.

An early step in identifying assets through an IP audit is the formation of an “IP committee,” consisting of persons from various business units within the organization. The committee may perform a variety of functions tailored to the organization’s particular IP management needs, including enforcement of the existing IP policy; evaluation of new ideas (to determine if pursuing formal protection is appropriate) and licensing to/from outside parties.

More particularly, an IP audit allows a company to identify and maximize the value of its different types of IP assets. Through an IP audit, a company should develop a “checklist” for identifying and developing potentially patentable subject matter and to address issues that may impact the company’s ability to secure its IP rights. For patentable technology, a standard “invention disclosure” form should be utilized through which a new idea is systematically recorded and evaluated by peers and the IP committee.

Trademarks and trade dress hold value through their positive association with a particular brand. Such value is determined by their distinctiveness, their use and protection, and the quality of the associated goods/services. Trademarks and trade dress are protected primarily under federal law, while some some state law is applicable as well. The IP committee should formulate a policy for developing, clearing and protecting trademarks and trade dress, and for standardizing use across all business units. The policy should also require a pre-adoption clearance search be conducted before any proposed mark or trade dress is approved for wide-scale adoption, use and potential registration. If trademarks and trade dress are not properly vetted, protected and used in a consistent manner, the company risks losing brand recognition and diluting the goodwill associated with its marks.

The IP committee should foster and monitor the development of copyrightable material, confirm ownership in works created by employees and contractors, and minimize the risk of infringement of third-party IP rights by company personnel, particularly with respect to software.

Software created by an employee within the scope of employment is typically owned by the employer as a “work made for hire.” However, software created outside of the company does not automatically fall within the legal definition of WMFH. Consequently, if a software development agreement with an outside contractor does not include an express assignment of the copyright and ownership of the software back to the company, neither may legally be owned by the company. An IP audit should confirm that all such agreements ensure the company owns full title, and not merely a licensed right, to any software created for the company. Any use by the company of open-source software should also be monitored and, if necessary, its source confirmed. An IP audit should confirm the company’s rights in all software (both originally created and third-party) being used in its operations.

Finally, an organization’s trade secret information is often at the heart of its operations. Similarly, a policy should be implemented to identify (through the audit) and protect (through the IP program) such information from inadvertent or intentional disclosure. The policy should address the treatment of such information disclosed to parties outside and within the organization (during and after employment). One element of establishing trade secret rights under state or federal law is the owner must have identified the trade secret and must have itself taken measures, reasonable under the circumstances, to preserve the confidential information. A court will not protect and prevent the disclosure of information the company itself has not taken steps to protect. Here again, any organization possessing such information should adopt a checklist to identify and implement security precautions.

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 recently created a new federal action to protect trade secrets. The DTSA addresses previous weaknesses in state laws (without replacing them), and is modeled on the longstanding Uniform Trade Secrets Act adopted by most states, including Indiana. The DTSA provides for (1) access to federal courts applying a truly uniform trade secret law, and (2) an ex parte seizure mechanism to stop trade secret theft in process but not yet complete. To benefit from the DTSA, an organization’s IP program should have a response plan in place before facing a trade secret emergency. Without advance planning as set forth in a cohesive IP plan, a company’s opportunity to prevent trade secret theft and the loss of valuable IP can be irretrievably undermined.

A company’s valuable and monetizable IP may be present but untapped or unprotected. If properly mined and maintained, IP assets hiding within the hills of an organization can prove valuable to its bottom line. Good luck prospecting!•

• Daniel L. Boots is a partner of the Intellectual Property & Technology group at Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, focusing his practice on counseling emerging and established businesses in all areas of intellectual property and technology. Dan has more than 29 years of experience in domestic and foreign IP matters and can be reached at The opinions expressed are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: Here are the two research papers: 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.