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. File under the Sociology of Hoosier Discipline ... “We will be answering the complaint in due course and defending against the commission’s allegations,” said Indianapolis attorney Don Lundberg, who’s representing Hudson in her disciplinary case. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW ... Lundberg ran the statist attorney disciplinary machinery in Indy for decades, and is now the "go to guy" for those who can afford him .... the ultimate insider for the well-to-do and/or connected who find themselves in the crosshairs. It would appear that this former prosecutor knows how the game is played in Circle City ... and is sacrificing accordingly. See more on that here ... Legal sociologists could have a field day here ... I wonder why such things are never studied? Is a sacrifice to the well connected former regulators a de facto bribe? Such questions, if probed, could bring about a more just world, a more equal playing field, less Stalinist governance. All of the things that our preambles tell us to value could be advanced if only sunshine reached into such dark worlds. As a great jurist once wrote: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It (1914). Ah, but I am certifiable, according to the Indiana authorities, according to the ISC it can be read, for believing such trite things and for advancing such unwanted thoughts. As a great albeit fictional and broken resistance leaders once wrote: "I am the dead." Winston Smith Let us all be dead to the idea of maintaining a patently unjust legal order.

  2. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  3. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  4. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  5. My husband left me and the kids for 2 years, i did everything humanly possible to get him back i prayed i even fasted nothing worked out. i was so diver-stated, i was left with nothing no money to pay for kids up keep. my life was tearing apart. i head that he was trying to get married to another lady in Italy, i look for urgent help then i found Dr.Mack in the internet by accident, i was skeptical because i don’t really believe he can bring husband back because its too long we have contacted each other, we only comment on each other status on Facebook and when ever he come online he has never talks anything about coming back to me, i really had to give Dr.Mack a chance to help me out, luckily for me he was God sent and has made everything like a dream to me, Dr.Mack told me that everything will be fine, i called him and he assured me that my Husband will return, i was having so many doubt but now i am happy,i can’t believe it my husband broke up with his Italian lady and he is now back to me and he can’t even stay a minute without me, all he said to me was that he want me back, i am really happy and i cried so much because it was unbelievable, i am really happy and my entire family are happy for me but they never know whats the secret behind this…i want you all divorce lady or single mother, unhappy relationship to please contact this man for help and everything will be fine i really guarantee you….if you want to contact him you can reach him through dr.mac@yahoo. com..,