Guest blog: The five principles of IP licensing

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

Guest blog: The five principles of IP licensing

Samuel Davis of Landon IP and Haydn Evans of CPA Global explain how to develop a strong licensing programme

haydn20evans-cpa20global.jpg

News that US investment company Starboard Value is reportedly urging Yahoo to create additional value for shareholders through a licensing programme for its extensive IP portfolio underlines a more general corporate trend ­– at Board and investor level – to focus on the monetisation of intellectual assets as part of broader business and value creation strategies.

Indeed, for numerous technology companies, licensing is becoming a major revenue stream – sometimes, even their entire business model. A more pro-active use of patent portfolios is an increasingly acceptable and lucrative alternative to the traditional “secure-maintain-defend” approach to IP. In addition, details of licensing deals and associated revenues that may not have been transparent in the past are frequently appearing in the media, adding to the general awareness and subsequent pressure for companies to do more with their IP.

Yet, for many companies seeking to exploit licensing opportunities, a number of obstacles lie in wait. Chief among these is insufficient awareness among IP holders of what assets could be licensed to other parties and who those parties are. Effective use of analytics and smart day-to-day IP asset management practices can help.

The foundation of a strong licensing programme is based on five principles:

1. Ensure management buy-in

2. Know what you have and organise it

3. Rank your assets

4. Track competitor activity

5. Revisit and reevaluate


Ensure management buy-in

Some companies still view patents only as a tool for defensive purposes. It is imperative, therefore, that you gain management support before proceeding with licensing investigations. These can involve a large amount of work and you do not want to end up unable to reach consensus on what patents you are actually prepared to license.


Know what you have and organise it

Keep a good inventory of your IP assets. At a minimum, assets should be tagged in a way that shows their relationship to the business, thereby enabling the portfolio to be mined more efficiently. Which products are covered by which patents? Which business units are benefiting from which patents? Are there adjacent industries that might benefit from technologies covered in your patents? The inventory might also include information on likely potential infringers; any initially-identified infringing products; the potential future value of the claimed technology, etc.

samuel20davis20landon20ip.jpg Rank your assets

Ranking patents can be difficult as there is no magic formula and every organisation’s structure is unique. A patents “value” basically comes from two factors: legal strength and commercial relevance.

Legal strength is often assumed to be high. However, this is not always the case, and changes in legislation, such as, for example, the recent Alice v CLS Bank International case regarding patentable subject matter, can fundamentally impact the legal strength and enforceability of your patents. Such legislative changes need to be tracked.

Commercial relevance is somewhat easier to define since organisations typically have an embedded knowledge of what is relevant to their business. Does the patent cover an entire product or just part of it? Is the market for this product mature or nascent? Is infringement of this technology easy or hard to detect? Patent landscape studies can be used here to assess the broader technological field and to identify other players and potential licensees.

Track competitor activity

As the patent owner, you are solely responsible for identifying potential patent infringement. Therefore, it is good practice to reward staff for locating target products that may infringe your patents. However, as licensing opportunities generally arise through awareness of infringement and concerted follow-up, it is also fruitful to put in place a more thorough monitoring of competitor product activity.

Revisit and reevaluate

The value and importance of a patent or portfolio changes over its lifetime as the market shifts, so it is essential to update rankings regularly. An effective way to do this is to build an automatic evaluation update into your IP processes; for example, including a re-evaluation as part of the keep/abandon decision before paying a patent renewal.

Once you have identified which IP assets are likely to be most attractive and who the potential licensees are, you need to demonstrate to those target organisations the requirement for a licence.

Illustrating there is a real likelihood of infringement will often be sufficient evidence to convince a target company that it is in their best interest to take a licence. However, in order to get to that point, you need to be able to compare the service or product of the target against your patent claim(s). This can be as straightforward as making a chart of what the elements of the patent claim mean; then performing technology research on what the target’s product/service specifications are, and comparing the two.

Come up with a good match and it provides a more transparent and easily demonstrable reason for licensing.


Samuel Davis (pictured, above left) is based in Tokyo and is director of business development, analytics and technology consulting services at CPA Global’s specialist patent research arm, Landon IP.

Haydn Evans (pictured, top right) is vice president, IP solutions at CPA Global, based in London.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
Gift this article