Three views from in-house counsel on managing innovation

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Three views from in-house counsel on managing innovation

AIPPP_lunch_Embraer

Diverse perspectives on the challenges of managing innovation in an increasingly politicised climate were provided by in-house counsel from 3M, Canon and Embraer at a lunchtime discussion at the AIPPI Congress



AIPPI lunch panel

Dean Harts of 3M said that his company recently received its 100,000th patent, while Kenichi Nagasawa said Canon had some 860 people working in IP worldwide. By contrast, said Wander Stange Menchik, Embraer has only been dealing with IP since 2006 and has an in-house team of just four people.

“Our competitors are much larger and have a stronger IP tradition. We’re still learning,” he said, speaking in Portuguese. He said his priorities are to ensure that IP assets are protected appropriately, to get the highest value out of the assets while also checking the company is not infringing others’ rights, and to structure the assets in the best possible way – something that is becoming more of a challenge: “The fiscal incentive law in Brazil is being reviewed and that could be a major obstacle if you invest in Brazil.”

AIPPI Embraer

On the positive side, there are few competitors and not much litigation in the aviation industry. But Embraer faces challenges arising from open innovation and cooperation: the company has more than 200 contracts with partners all over the world, including with universities and research institutes. Managing the IP rights and open innovation in that context can present difficulties.

Nagasawa faces somewhat different problems, which include the exponential growth in patents; the threat from patent assertion entities; 3D printing enabling manufacture at home; and what he called the “IP crossover” of different rights. He traced the evolution of an industry such as cameras from mechanical to electronic to IT-based technology, with the latter bringing additional features such as WiFi and GPS. Progression to each stage is accompanied by “a great increase in the number of patents embedded in a single product,” said Nagasawa.

Harts said that 3M is active in 200 countries, and two-thirds of its sales are outside the US; he compared his experience of patent and trade secrets disputes in Germany, Japan, the US and Korea. “The US is the most expensive jurisdiction for patent enforcement – but also the most expensive for defendants,” he commented.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article