|It's good to collaborate, but|
make sure the resultant IP
is not held jointly
Not all the smart people work for you
Traditionally, internal innovation was the paradigm in which most companies operated. Most innovating companies kept their discoveries highly secret and made no attempt to assimilate information from outside their own R&D labs. This was driven by the belief that "the smart people in our field work for us". However, in recent years the world has seen major advances in technology and society, changes which have facilitated the diffusion of information. Companies have also come to realise that "not all the smart people work for us, and that we need to work with smart people inside and outside our company".
Various forms of collaborative innovation
Collaborative innovation can take many forms, including working with universities, cooperating closely with key suppliers and vendors, collaborating with application developers, content providers, and technology and design houses. It may mean working with various communities including 'open’ communities, innovation networks and interoperability standardisation bodies, as well as customers and end-users. It can also involve working with start-ups and VC or Business Angel funded entities. Collaborative innovation can also vary in terms of the number of the actual parties involved, the nature of the research or type of development work in question, the actual technology classification, the funding model applied, timescales involved and the overall scope of the collaboration and cooperation.
Different types of collaboration partners
Collaborating with an external innovator might be thought to mean an equal partnership between two (or more) parties who are pursuing mutually interesting and beneficial R&D type work. Today, however, many collaboration projects involve parties from very different types of organisations and of very differing stature and funding status. External innovators collaborate in many ways and innovators may find themselves working together on a sponsored project. They may make equal contributions to the project or one may be leading the project whilst the other is providing expertise on a smaller or more narrowly defined aspect of the project. Interdisciplinary projects occur when innovators from different disciplines are involved in a project in which, for example, they are looking at a problem from different perspectives, or when a project involves a complex set of questions that cross disciplines. Sometimes innovators work separately and yet collaborate on a project. This can occur in a variety of ways, but most frequently it is when they are working on different aspects of the same project, but exchanging data between one another.
IP is generated during the innovation process, regardless of whether it is internal or collaborative in nature. Who then owns the IP created when cooperating and collaborating with an external party is a key issue which needs to be clearly defined for all parties concerned. This is usually defined in the IP terms and conditions section of the cooperation agreement. Ownership of the IP which arises as a result of the innovation is one of the most critical issue to resolve.
IP ownership in cooperation agreements
It is important that IP ownership is agreed in a cooperation agreement before any work takes place, although I accept that this is often not possible. At the very least, IP ownership should be discussed and agreed before any money has been expended on the IP creation process.
When a company pays for external innovative work to be conducted, it may reasonably expect to own any resulting IP, but this is not automatic. Most companies will typically seek to own all IP relevant to their business, but they need to accept that the other party may think the same. When a company cannot own the IP, it may seek exclusive rights for a negotiable period.
The rules of IP ownership can also vary according to different national laws, and it is therefore important to take this factor also into consideration.
Jointly owned IP perceived as the 'fair' solution
With more and more companies and organisations entering into these types of collaborative innovation projects, joint ventures, strategic alliances, etc., joint ownership of IP has become quite commonplace. The most common form of IP allocation in collaborative innovation projects is some form of joint ownership, because joint ownership is perceived to be a "fair" solution in situations involving multiple parties.
Jointly-owned IP may also be the “'easy” option, as it does not require in-depth discussion about how the IP should be divided out, plus it does not seem to give any advantage to one party over another. Unfortunately, joint ownership of IP is fraught with danger.
Jointly owned IP not so simple
Jointly developed IP may be defined as IP developed together by the two or more parties, where for example the list of inventors includes employees from both parties and where the parties share the cost and risk of the R&D work and its results.
Jointly owned IP may be defined as two or more parties having shared ownership and control of the very same IP. This may mean that a joint decision is required by all parties for practically any or all disposal of the IP. It may mean that any exploitation must be handled contractually for example, with written consent needed from one party for the other party to enforce its rights, with perhaps some limitations specified for the sub-licensing and/or licensing of rights and with an obligation to share license revenues. Challenges at each and every stage: Let us focus on one form of IP, namely patents, to illustrate these challenges. Jointly owned patents face challenges at each and every stage of the patenting process and differing business needs create different patent coverage needs. The drafting, filing and prosecution of a patent therefore becomes complicated and more expensive, and the end result may not be optimal for some or all of the parties involved. The licensing of jointly owned patents dilutes the value for both owners if a license is available from both owners. There is no effective means to grant a covenant not to sue or a non-assert.
The divestment of jointly owned patents also creates challenges. The value is diluted since it is only possible to transfer the owner’s share, not the entire rights. Also warranties typically require full ownership. When declaring essential patents for an interoperability standard, both owners must declare and commit to the same rules to make the declaration effective.
If involved in patent litigation, most countries require both owners as plaintiffs and without common interest to sue, the patent is basically worthless.
As far as business accounting is concerned, it may be a tough challenge to put the correct financial valuation of jointly owned IP onto the company's balance sheet.
For these reasons, I argue that it is advisable to avoid jointly owned IP.
US law regarding jointly owned IP
There are differences in IP law, or the interpretation of IP law, between jurisdictions. The "territorial" nature of IP refers to the fact that countries enact their own IP laws, typically by statute, and these IP laws have no application or force outside the country in which they are enacted.
A patent can be owned jointly if devised jointly by more than one person. As far as US patent law is concerned, the default rule is that each joint owner can utilise or exploit the patent without the permission of the other joint owners. Further, the exploiting joint owner has no responsibility to share royalty revenues with any other joint owner. However, to enforce the patent, all the joint owners must join in the law-suit. If one joint owner wishes to sue rather than license a third party, any other joint owner can terminate the law-suit by simply refusing to join in or by granting a license.
It is most important to realise that there are multiple regimes of intellectual property protection. The situation with joint ownership becomes even more complicated if multiple forms of IP are involved, each with differing default rules. For example, contrary to the US patent rule joint owners of a US copyright must share royalties. Almost all useful products are protected by multiple forms of IP such as patents, designs, trade marks and copyright. Such complexity arises for example when a software product that is covered by both patent and copyright is licensed by a joint owner. Joint owners would need to determine which percentage of the software product is exempt from royalty-sharing under US patent law and which percentage is subject to royalty sharing under US copyright law.
The Chinese Patent Law was first promulgated in 1984 and has since been amended twice, in 1992 and 2000. China passed the Third Amendment to the PRC Patent Law in 2008, becoming effective in 2009. One of the important changes in this amendment concerned joint ownership as the existing law did not address the rights of joint owners of patents. The new law now includes a provision that specifies the rights of joint owners of patents. It provides that unless otherwise agreed upon by joint owners, a joint owner is entitled to exploit the jointly owned patent alone or grant a non-exclusive license to a third party to exploit such patent, and any fees generated from such license must be shared among all joint owners. All other types of exploitation of a jointly-owned patent must be agreed upon by all joint owners. Therefore, under this new law, assigning or granting exclusive license to a jointly owned patent must be agreed upon by all joint owners of that patent.
In relation to UK patents, section 36 of the Patents Act 1977 addresses the rights of co-owners. It states that, subject to an agreement to the contrary, each co-owner has the right to exploit the patent itself but it must obtain the other owner’s consent: (a) to amend or revoke the patent; (b) to grant a licence under the patent; or (c) to assign or mortgage its share of the patent.
The issue of joint ownership of IP is therefore even more complicated when the same IP asset is protected in multiple jurisdictions because different countries have different laws on this subject matter. In addition, parties based in different countries, looking at joint ownership according to their individual national laws, may have entirely different expectations and/or experiences of what it means to be a joint owner.
There are a number of other, better approaches worth considering instead of agreeing to jointly owned IP. One party may own all of the IP generated as a result of the collaborative innovation and license it to the other party. The portfolio of IP created may be divided out between the parties, based on the vested interests of each party. If multiple parties are involved in the collaborative innovation, and there is a large portfolio of IP in existence, then a “patent pool” type arrangement may be considered, with an administrator appointed. Or the IP portfolio may be divvied up between the parties to distribute the costs and provide coverage with cross licenses.
Many business people and even experienced IP attorneys and practitioners lack the in-depth appreciation of what joint ownership really means in practice, but they accept it nonetheless because “it seems fair” or "it has always been done that way." In reality, joint ownership of IP is fraught with danger and contrary to common perception, it is often unfair and, even worse, is usually unworkable.
Personally, I would recommend to avoid jointly owned IP like the plague. If the parties do decide that joint ownership is the best solution, then the most important thing to remember is that the agreement between the parties should set out in detail the worldwide rights and obligations of all of the parties involved in relation to the jointly owned IP. Joint ownership should never be seen as the “easy option”.