Building a solid IP foundation for your startup: why early IP consultation matters

As an mental property lawyer, I engage with startups in a variety of how. Regardless of size or stage of development, I help clients discover and protect their mental property; build and manage a robust mental property portfolio; and leverage your IP assets to lift funds and grow your business.

Often, startups contact me at the starting of their development when they have a general concept that they “need to protect their intellectual property.” However, they often do not know exactly what this implies and what the process involves.

Any startup innovating or engaging in R&D should seek legal advice from an mental property advisor early and often to avoid problems that might resurface and harm the company in the future. One common mistake made by individuals who do not work with an mental property advisor, for example, is the risk of unintentionally disclosing a company’s innovations to people outside the company before mental property protection is granted. This mistake could impair the company’s ability to acquire patent protection for its innovations in the future.

Early legal consultation is necessary in building a solid mental property foundation and can mean the difference between a fledgling idea and a thriving company. These Q&As will answer some of the more common questions I’m asked and help startups navigate the complex IP landscape and build a competitive advantage.

Can you explain how the expertise of an IP specialist can add value to a startup because it develops or commercializes its product and formulates its IP strategy?

As an mental property lawyer, I’m often asked to assist startups discover and protect necessary points of their innovations. A big a part of my job is presenting arguments to patent examiners regarding the have to grant a patent for an invention. It often happens that the startup’s view of the importance of its invention does not coincide with the examiner’s view. However, for such startups, it is most definitely not in the company’s best interest to change into involved in a protracted and expensive dispute with a patent inspector. Instead, I counsel my startups to thoughtfully and focus their first patent applications to specifically address the industrial application of their invention or one other specific embodiment that is less more likely to encounter significant obstacles during examination.

If the patent is granted in a timely manner, the startup can use it as a promotional tool to draw investors and scale the company. Subsequent patent applications, resources permitting, can then be directed towards a more complex IP strategy. Startups that focus their strategy in this manner – starting with the applications most definitely to be granted and then moving on to more expansive applications – can maximize their limited resources, often resulting in a more significant impact on the company’s future.

What points of a startup’s business model or industry do you think about when providing legal advice, and how do you be certain that your approach is consistent with its unique needs and goals?

Thoughtful legal advice should take into account not only the current state and needs of the startup, but must also take into account potential developments upstream and downstream in the supply chain. A holistic view of a company along with its suppliers, customers, partners, locations and competitors may result in legal advice that is not only aligned with the company’s immediate goals, but also considers the right way to best position the startup for future success.

From your perspective, what are the common legal or mental property challenges that startups often face, and how do you proactively approach these issues to forestall future complications?

A typical legal trap that startups often fall into is attempting to “do it all.” Every startup has limited time and financial resources. Planning and then implementing a legal strategy that does not realistically take these constraints into account, in conjunction with the company’s short and long-term goals, may result in resources being spent at an exceptionally high rate to attain little or no. Instead, the startup should develop legal strategies that are based on an authentic view of the company’s current state, its available resources and achievable goals. For example, a company with limited resources shouldn’t develop and implement an international application strategy that exceeds its capabilities. A thoughtful and focused plan that focuses on the location of the company, the location of the company’s customers, and the location of the company’s competitors (in that order of importance) is often the best approach.

Some startup owners feel that working with a lawyer is not a priority until the company grows or scales. What advice would you give to entrepreneurs who do not plan a budget for legal advice at the starting?

I warn them that they delay at their very own risk. Many legal questions/considerations are time-sensitive, and the claim of ignorance is almost never a good defense. Even if there are budget constraints, resources ought to be allocated to realize at least a general understanding of the legal environment the startup is entering and any difficult deadlines that must be taken into account. For example, mental property law has hard and fast application deadlines that may be triggered no matter the startup’s intentions. Missing such a deadline in order to guard what is often considered the “crown jewel” of a startup may be incurable and ultimately result in the company’s failure.

What sorts of mental property protection are necessary for a startup at its early stage?

Although patent protection is often addressed first as a result of stringent application filing regulations in connection with a public disclosure, offer for sale or sale, start-up corporations could be sensible to contemplate all appropriate types of mental property, which is often the first step in to guard such property wins. For example, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights, and design patents are additional types of mental property that may be used, in conjunction with utility patents, as a part of an “intellectual property arsenal” to guard a company’s innovations. It is necessary to contemplate these options when first developing your IP portfolio. This can assist ensure you’ll be able to protect yourself in the future and avoid missing hard and fast deadlines or procedures.

Are there any international considerations that startups should pay attention to regarding mental property protection, especially if they plan to expand their business globally?

Thanks to quite a few international treaties, most mental property laws around the world are broadly harmonized and integrated. For example, most startups are aware that in one 12 months Once a provisional patent application is filed, a full U.S. provisional patent application have to be filed. However, this one-year window also constitutes the deadline for filing any foreign applications claiming priority over the provisional U.S. application. If foreign applications are not filed inside this time, the startup won’t have the opportunity to file foreign applications for the same invention later. Start-ups should subsequently be mindful of such deadlines and a full review of potential future expansion and the existing industrial landscape ought to be undertaken before deciding not to use.