Why counsel should copy competitors when optimising patents

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

Why counsel should copy competitors when optimising patents

IP, Intellectual Property Patent Concept

Brands should understand the revenue their patents protect and communicate with inventors, lawyers said in a talk on portfolio optimisation

Panellists from BAE Systems and Arm discussed best practices for optimising patent portfolios at the IP Corporate Strategy Summit on September 10, which was held virtually by Managing IP.

Rob Calico, vice president of IP and litigation at semiconductor company Arm in California, said a company should base its calculation for how many patents it needs partly on how many registrations belong to its competitors.

He asked: “If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too? Well if it’s in our same market space, yeah, we would.”

He said that companies might also want to let patents go from their portfolios to avoid paying maintenance fees.

·         How auto companies make IP strategies that suit their needs

·         Auto counsel give tips on IP department integration

·         Panel: learn difference between know-how and trade secrets

To work out which patents are needed and which are simply a drain on resources, he added, businesses should look at the technological and geographical areas they are in today and those they want to be in in the future. There may be territories in which companies no longer need to keep certain patents.

Matt McBrien, head of patents at BAE Systems in the UK, said his company tries to be extremely cost efficient and regularly reviews its portfolio to make sure it meets budget needs. The legal team also discusses patents with business leaders to make sure they are linked to particular business projects.

Sarah Guichard, lead patent counsel at Google in San Francisco but speaking in a personal capacity, said the value of patents is tied to the revenue they protect. Companies should work to understand their revenue and their licensing partners’ income because that knowledge will help both licensors and licensees see the value in the relationship.

Bruised egos

Panellists also delved into concerns that scrapping patents could bruise inventors’ egos if they were particularly attached to the patents.

McBrien at BAE Systems said lawyers should approach inventors with objective reasoning for why a patent was allowed to lapse. Patents that BAE Systems removes from its portfolio tend to be older, he said, and the inventor community has often moved on and isn’t bothered by the loss.

Sometimes, it’s also important for lawyers to discuss patent pruning with inventors because they may have reasons for keeping the patents that in-house attorneys haven’t considered, McBrien added.

Guichard said that she once encountered a case where assets were going to lapse but an inventor advised her not to let them go, and the patents ended up being extremely valuable to the company.

But most inventors she has worked with are fine with the fact that a patent might not be maintained, because they want their companies to have funds to protect newer technologies.

Calico at Arm added that the bonuses his company pays inventors are not dependent on whether the business pays renewal fees for the patents. He said he would imagine that inventors would be more upset about letting patents go if doing so decreased their bonuses.

Speakers then moved on to whether smaller companies needed to worry about patent portfolio optimisation or whether that was only a concern for bigger corporations.

McBrien said a company with two or three patents may not need a quarterly review process to determine whether it wants to pay renewal fees. But it should still understand what it wants IP to do for the business.

Guichard said smaller companies should consider whether they are filling patent applications in the right space and at the optimal time. “The size of the patent portfolio doesn’t matter. Optimisation is important,” she said.

Nigel Swycher, CEO at patent information services company Cipher in London, moderated the panel.

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