Intellectual Asset Management and Innovation Best Practices Benchmark Reports
The ipPerformance Group’s intellectual property benchmark operations studies are conducted to assess the prevailing and best practices across a wide spectrum of innovation-driven companies. In general, our Intellectual Property Benchmark Studies take a comprehensive, global look and most reports show results based on industry, revenue, invention activity, and R&D investment intensity.
Intellectual Property Legal Process Outsourcing (IP-LPO)
This study focused on outsourced activities conducted by nonemployees outside the company’s domestic or operational country (aka offshoring) for the purposes of achieving cost savings or not increasing headcount. However, we did not include work done on foreign applications by foreign associates.
Our Intellectual Property Legal Process Outsourcing Practices Benchmark Study took a comprehensive, global look at best practices for selecting and managing the activities outsourced. In other words, identify the IP operations that were successfully outsourced and best practices for managing relationships. We identified and investigated nine major IP operations, which included sixty-one activities.
International Inventor Remuneration Management and Practices Report
A study of inventor remuneration and incentive structures, amounts, administration and management, and award valuation approaches
In this comprehensive study were thirty-two multinational innovation-driven companies’ IP leaders and company contacts who have direct knowledge of their companies’ inventor remuneration practices. The results cover over seventeen facets of inventor rewards and recognition programs. In addition to reporting on company practices, we analyzed fifty-eight practices to ascertain the best practices that lead to pinnacle of performance.
ipPerformance Group research presents the definitive guide to inventor incentives and remunerations in innovation-driven companies. This comprehensive report showcases financial and nonfinancial awards, program management and budgets, program performance and improvements, and remuneration practices and experiences in jurisdictions with laws covering inventor remuneration and rights.
How are IRRPs structured? What are the financial and nonfinancial awards? Who is responsible for collecting and monitoring remunerations? How large are the IRRP budgets? What software tools do companies use to track and pay inventor remunerations? Which IP-related events do companies reward?
Trade Secret Management and Protection Practices Report
ipPerformance Group has gathered policies and best practices from 26 IP driven companies. This is the most comprehensive proprietary analysis for trade secret and proprietary information protection practices ever collected. Be confident using our guide as the definitive source of benchmarking and best practices data.
The Trade Secret Management and Protection Practices Report is the most comprehensive intellectual property operations practices benchmarking report of its kind. Use this unique report to:
- Help you craft trade secret policies and procedures that reduce risk of trade secret misappropriation and proprietary information leakage.
- Enable you to evaluate your protection practices and identify valuable improvement opportunities.
- Evaluate approaches used for controlling trade secrets and proprietary information conveyance (leakage), loss, and/or misappropriation.
- Assess training program that will improve corporate personnel and stakeholders’ trade secret knowledge.
How are companies capturing and managing trade secrets? Who is responsible for evaluating and managing trade secrets? What type of training achieves competency in handling trade secrets and proprietary information for corporate personnel and stakeholders? How are companies controlling trade secrets and proprietary information conveyance (leakage), loss, and/or misappropriation?
Intellectual Property Law Department Budgeting Practices Benchmark Report
Establishing an accurate and credible IP law department budget requires input from various internal stakeholders and external entities. Budgeting is a multifaceted, dynamic process; many voices are promoting their IP needs to support the technology direction and protection and strategies to achieve business growth. Finalizing the budget requires coherent messaging and substantiation to gain senior management’s approval and acceptance.
Our Intellectual Property Law Department Budgeting Practices Benchmark Study takes a comprehensive, global look at best practices for developing and managing the annual budget.
How are IP budgets developed? Who is responsible and who participates in the budgeting process? How long does it take to develop a budget? What expenses (activities) are identified and included in the budget? What methods are used to determine the budget number? How are accurate are approved budgets? What tools are used to develop a budget? How often are budgets reviewed? What factors influence your budget requirements?
Patent Preparation and Prosecution Quality Practices Benchmark Report
Generally, most IP leaders view that building a valid and enforceable patent is the ultimate goal for seeking patent protection. The purpose of the Patent Preparation and Prosecution Quality Practices Study was to capture the prevailing best practices for patent preparation used to achieve valid and enforceable utility patents. The findings revealed that companies have standardized practices for assessing the validity and quality of their patent applications. However, we did not observe universal approaches. We received contributions from companies representing a wide-range of diverse industries. The subject matter reported represented all types of utility patents. The highest proportions were process and machine patents.
Patent Translation Practices
Patent translation is a critical concern for companies filing for patent protection in countries that don’t accept the language of their original application. This survey was designed to explore the key considerations companies ensue and identify the prevailing and best practices.
Foreign Patent Prosecution Practices
This report reflects a diverse group of twenty-two patent-driven global companies.
Foreign patent applications may be filed in a variety of ways, including national patent applications filed in each country, a regional European patent application covering certain designated European countries, filing under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) or European Patent Office (EPO), and various combinations thereof.
In addition to identifying advantageous jurisdictions to protect your inventions, there are a myriad of options for foreign filing. Intellectual Property (IP) leaders must take several factors into account when deciding their approach to handling their foreign prosecution. This benchmark results explore the key considerations and identify the prevailing and best practices.
The Inventor Rewards and Recognition Programs
The Inventor Rewards and Recognition Programs (IRRP) Best Practices Benchmark Report includes quantitative data from a survey of 49 innovation-driven companies across 24 major industries. This information will show you how to create a winning incentive program and avoid the mistakes made by others. In the report, corporate leaders share what does, and does not, work.
Designing and implementing a robust inventor rewards program can be daunting. To be successful, this program must motivate your inventor community to increase valuable innovations, prompt new inventors to submit inventions, and improve inventor support of your intellectual property (IP) protection program. Simply establishing a program will not guarantee increased participation—or ultimate success.
ipPerformance Group research presents the definitive guide to inventor incentives and remunerations in innovation-driven companies. This comprehensive report showcases financial and nonfinancial awards; program management and budgets; program performance and improvements, and remuneration practices and experiences in jurisdictions with laws covering inventor remuneration and rights.
Invention Harvesting, Selection, and IP Protection Decision Practices
A vital phase of the intellectual property (IP) program is the process of identifying, articulating, and capturing invention ideas and determining how the asset will be processed and made part of the IP asset portfolio. This workflow begins at the time an idea is identified, and runs through the steps of invention articulation, assessment, and patent review committee evaluations and determinations.
In this comprehensive study, innovation-driven companies shared effective invention harvesting methods, invention disclosure review and selection practices, use of prior art searches, IP protection decision factors, patent review committee responsibilities, patent portfolio pruning criteria, and performance metrics.
This report reflects a diverse group of twenty-nine intellectual property driven companies.
Intellectual Property Law Department (Large Entities – based on study conducted for Intellectual Property Owners Association)
A Study of Patent Operation Costs, Staffing, Outside Counsel, Workflow Cycle-Times, Patent Committees, Search, and Best Practices.
The intellectual Property (IP) Law’s Department’s patent operation is the hub for a corporate innovation protection program. Protecting innovation is paramount to companies’ sustainable growth plans and competitiveness, but there is the expectation that patent operational performance be efficient, productive, and effective in reducing risk, enabling value, and containing costs. It can serve as the glue within the organization that captures, protects, manages, and monetizes intellectual property.
Between March and May 2017, ipPerformance Group (“ipPerformance”) conducted research on behalf of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) to identify the best practices for managing corporate patent practices. We surveyed seventy-four diverse companies representing more than twenty-seven industries, including chemicals, high technology, machinery (industrial/agricultural), pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, petroleum and energy, semiconductor, telecommunication services, medical devices, consumer goods, and automotive industries. Participant corporate functions came from the legal department, basically all of whom had intimate knowledge of the company’s patent department practices, budget, and staffing.
In this groundbreaking report, innovation-driven companies shared department costs, workflows cycle-times, professional and non-professional staffing sizes, outside usage and fee arrangements, foreign filing strategies, licensing responsibilities, patent search practices, performance metrics and much more.
This report includes a thorough executive summary that provides key highlights and observations. The full report provides descriptive charts and more than 130 pages of detailed statistics.
Intellectual Property Law Department – Patent Operation
The Intellectual Property Law Department’s Patent Operation is central to a corporate innovation protection program. Protecting innovation is paramount to companies’ sustainable growth plans and competitiveness, but there is an expectation that patent operational performance be efficient, productive, and effective to reduce risk, enable value, and contain costs. It can serve as the glue within the organization to capture, protect, manage, and monetize intellectual property.
The IP Law Department Patent Operation Study confirms that while the legal team is mostly managed as a cost center and is budget driven, it plays a key role in identifying protectable inventions. It is evident from this study that many IP departments are under constant pressure to operate at the lowest cost possible, yet drive more protectable inventions. The most cited driver behind procurement and maintenance decisions was cost.
The Intellectual Property Law Department Patent Operation is central to a corporate innovation protection program. Protecting innovation is paramount to companies’ sustainable growth plans and competitiveness, but there is an expectation that patent operational performance be efficient, productive, and effective to reduce risk and contain costs. It can serve as the glue within the organization to capture, protect, manage, and monetize intellectual property.
In this comprehensive study, innovation-driven companies shared operational costs, staffing and attorney responsibilities, patent filing strategies, improvement strategies, and performance metrics.
This groundbreaking report will assist you in evaluating your department costs and staffing levels. For example, this report details specific attorney and support staff sizes and performance metrics, attorney activities, cycle time and workload, patent filing strategies (including foreign filing decisions), and many other factors that impact a patent operation.
Intellectual Asset Management Software Satisfaction Report
Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) is defined as a continuous management process focused on creating, managing, and exploiting intangible assets for optimum value. Today, the market is comprised of a spectrum of intellectual asset management software vendors offering comprehensive systems and support services. These solutions enable organizations to manage intellectual assets throughout the intellectual property life cycle.
This study investigates the corporate experience with IAM software systems, including satisfaction with product functionality and vendor capabilities, strengths and limitations, system benefits, and integration with service providers and complementary internal software systems.
Recognizing the business value potential of intellectual assets, most large IP-driven organizations have invested in or are seeking comprehensive, enterprise-wide IAM solutions that facilitate the management and protection of intellectual assets. ipPerformance Group compiled this report to provide an assessment of corporate experiences with IAM vendors and software system functionality. This was accomplished using feedback from thirty-one corporations.
Intellectual Property Law Department: Outside Counsel Costs, Cycle-time, and Quality Management Study
Both large and small enterprises rely on outside counsel for the majority of their patent application preparation and prosecution cases. Unchecked, corporate intellectual property outside counsel fees can swell and have been potentially excessive. Companies identified twenty significant operational changes they requested of their IP law firm(s) to reduce costs. Fifty percent of companies indicated the most significant law firm operational change requested was changing fee structure from hourly to fixed (or alternative fee arrangement).
The topics that we investigated fell into eleven core areas: IP Law Firm Usage and Trends; Time and Efficiencies; IP Law Firm Costs Averages; Outside Counsel Guidelines; Provisional and Non-Provisional Patent Filing; Fee Arrangements (Alternative/Fixed and Hourly Rates); Methods for Improving Cost and Performance; Managing Costs; International Patent Preparation and Prosecution; Law Firm Changes (Add or Eliminate); and Patent/Technology Enforcement & Disputes Activities.
Our Intellectual Property Law Department: Outside Counsel Costs, Cycle-time, and Quality Management Study takes a comprehensive and global look at best practices for effective management of law firms for patenting activities. This is the ninth year that ipPerformance Group has collected comprehensive data and information on Intellectual Property Law Departments. In this study, we are investigating law firm patent-related costs, management practices, operational efficiencies, law firm utilization, and international patent prosecution approaches.
Law firm expenses represent the largest portion of the IP Law Department budget in most companies. With continued economic pressures, IP Law Department leadership seek to find new ways to manage increasing costs and operate more efficiently while improving the effectiveness of their patent assets.
The Intellectual Property Law Department: Outside Counsel Costs, Cycle-time, and Quality Management study confirms that law firm management varies widely across companies, but there are best practices for managing law firm relationships to achieve high quality results, timely responses, and lower costs.
In this comprehensive study, innovation-driven companies shared detailed law firm activity costs, management and assessment practices, selection methods, fee management practices, international patent preparation and prosecution approaches, and methods for improving attorney responsibilities, patent filing strategies, and performance metrics.
Intellectual Property Training Programs Best Practices Benchmark Report
Improving intellectual property (IP) knowledge has consistently been identified in ipPerformance surveys as one of the top challenges for IP leaders. Approaches to training for corporate IP stakeholder varies widely, from structured and standardized to episodic and infrequent. It’s noteworthy, but not surprising, that companies whose key IP stakeholders (e.g., business management, R&D management and inventors) possess a higher degree of IP knowledge, also report better R&D investment performance than companies whose stakeholders have lower IP aptitudes. Furthermore, these organizations have lower proportional legal and patent procurement costs.
This study investigates the comprehensiveness of IP training programs, success measures and which program characteristics have the greatest impact on achieving training goals.
Our intellectual property training program study took a comprehensive and global look at best practices for teaching corporate policies, practices and fundamental concepts for intellectual property and assets. This was our third comprehensive study examining corporate intellectual property training programs. We investigated breadth of training courses, delivery methods, roles and responsibilities, and company IP stakeholder knowledge levels.
The objective of this study was to understand the approach to, and results of, IP training in best-in-class companies. Furthermore, we sought to understand the methods and practices that are used to achieve an IP-literate culture. We also investigated how companies measure the impact or value of their training programs and identify the factors that can impact the management and employee support critical for maintaining an IP-driven culture.
The report outlines training program structures, policies, budget management, delivery methods, and performance metrics to allow readers to come away with insights that can enhance training performance.
Through the revealing of quantitative results from a survey of 31 corporations, the Intellectual Property Training Best Practices Benchmark Report will show you how to create a highly effective training program that will lead to strengthening employee knowledge and hence increase innovation activity.
Patent Intelligence – Search and Analytics
Patent intelligence is vital to organizations that have strategy-driven patent programs and those that want to mitigate patent infringement risks. At an increasing rate, companies are using patent intelligence to make research and development decisions, anticipate competitor technology plans, develop licensing strategies, and establish comprehensive technology road maps. This study can help executives learn how leading organizations use patent data to drive strategy and market success. Furthermore, to determine how best-in-class companies proactively manage their patent intelligence functions to sustain efficiency and profitability.
Recognized participants include: Zebra Technologies Corporation, Visa, Tessera, Scil Proteins, Sasol, PepsiCo, Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd, Kimberly-Clark, ITT Corporation, GE, Cytec Industries Inc., Crown Packaging
Developing Intellectual Property Strategies and Performance Metrics
IP leaders from many leading companies view developing plans and strategies as a vital activity toward overall business growth. Developing those plans and strategies enable stakeholders to establish a uniform perspective on how to achieve business growth goals as well as sustainable competitive advantages.
This groundbreaking report will assist you in evaluating how your company prepares intellectual property strategies. For example, this report details strategy structure and information sources, roles and responsibilities, key performance indicators, types of competitor information used, portfolio management decision criteria, and many other factors that impact intellectual property strategies.
In this comprehensive report, innovation-driven companies share their intellectual property strategy development and performance metrics practices. The study was designed to consider industry characteristics, importance of each intellectual property asset, internal company support and advocacy, strategy elements and success factors, competitive understanding and influences, intellectual property portfolio management, IP strategies integration with business planning and strategy, licensing strategies, and the use of performance metrics.
Recognized participants include: Symantec, Cytec Industries Inc., Zebra Technologies, Sun Chemical Corporation, Valmet
Handling Non-Practicing Entities Benchmark Report
Learning from experience. IP leaders and litigators provide candid feedback on how they handle attacks from Non-Practicing Entities (NPE).
Challenged by an uncertain future with the growth of Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs or Patent Trolls), companies across all industries are assessing their approach to handling NPE attacks and risk management. To mitigate the impact on the enterprise, company leaders must be able to respond effectively to current attacks and measure long-term risk, anticipate unforeseen threats and adapt their patent strategies accordingly. This report is designed to help learn which strategies and tactics are employed to combat NPEs and manage risk while identifying opportunities for long-term action.