"Patent portfolios are frequently discussed in terms of size, technological breadth, or litigation potential. Those characteristics may be easy to measure, but they are not what determines whether a portfolio succeeds or fails. At their core, patent portfolios are business assets that must be managed deliberately and strategically. When they are not, they become cost centers that quietly consume resources without delivering meaningful competitive advantage."
"Companies that understand this reality treat portfolio development as an ongoing strategic discipline. Companies that do not eventually discover that patents can become expensive liabilities that complicate decision-making and limit flexibility rather than enabling growth. The central challenge facing corporate IP leaders is balancing three competing forces: portfolio quality, lifecycle cost and market coverage. Getting that balance right determines whether a patent portfolio becomes a strategic asset that supports innovation and investment, or simply another recurring expense that no one wants to question."
Patent portfolios must perform and require intentional strategy, disciplined execution, and continuous recalibration. Size, technological breadth, and litigation potential are easy to measure but do not determine portfolio success. Patent portfolios are business assets that require deliberate, strategic management or they become cost centers that consume resources without creating competitive advantage. Patents impose long-term financial obligations such as maintenance fees, foreign annuities, administrative overhead, and internal management time. Corporate IP leaders must balance portfolio quality, lifecycle cost, and market coverage so patents support innovation and investment instead of becoming restrictive liabilities.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]