Operational Value Creation around Intellectual Property: A Dual Strategy

I. Capturing IP Value.

Intellectual Property has been taken for granted until recent research has revealed its potential for value creation. As the developed world continues to shift from a manufacturing economy towards a post-industrial and knowledge economy, IP will have a greater importance in a company′s assets[1]. Indeed, there is no doubt that IP will play a more profound role in the business landscape of the present and near future, specially if we consider that a company′s value, based on its brand and other intangibles such as its products or innovation portfolio, provides many strategic possibilities for investment[2].

There are diverse mechanisms and tools that help in capturing and creating IP Value. Institutional frameworks and legal regimes are part of these mechanisms. For example, institutional frameworks such as formal IP regimes serve to assign and enforce IP rights while, at the same time, they respond to the needs that any given firm may have for the protection of important intangibles such as innovation, business models or even knowledge[3].

Moreover, the institutional framework of strong IP regimes not only protects IP rights, but provides a mechanism to exclude others from appropriating value[4]. Thus, applying for patents, trademarks and industrial design is essential for capturing value and practically the main justification for registering formal IP rights[5].

However, legal regimes and institutional frameworks can only get you so far in generating value for your IP because most of these regimes are efficient at enforcing these rights at a national level only[6] and entail other kinds of risks of which I will talk about later on. The problem with legal regimes is that they do not provide the groundwork for generating value beyond its initial capture, regardless of the scope of the legal protection of any given IP regime.

If capturing and generating IP value through the use of legal tools at a national level is insufficient, it is less efficient at an international level. Indeed, while research suggests that there is a need for global patents protected by international regimes, there is research that suggests that this alternative may affect innovation negatively[7]. This explains why firms need to use multiple mechanisms to capture and exploit the value of their intangible assets by going beyond legal regimes and making use of the different kinds of market and non-market mechanisms available to them.

The reasons for using these alternative mechanisms are also diverse and depend on various factors, such as the specific sector and market in which the company operates. Firms will typically need to use these market mechanisms because, on the one hand, even in markets with strong IP regimes, the disclosure requirements might give way for other parties to invent around an invention[8]. On the other hand, firms might want to simply monetize a portfolio and a legal regime as a tool or mechanism merely protects IP by precluding others from using the invention and by helping to capture its value at an initial level, but it does not help to generate or increase its value on the market like an asset specific business strategy does.

Thus, contrary to what many might think, legal IP Strategy and Business Strategy are two sides of the same coin[9] and go hand in hand. As we can see, there is no point in limiting strategies to one specific form of mechanism to generate IP value. The advantage yielded from combining both strategic approaches is that companies with patents and other intangibles can choose different methods to generate economic returns from their IP portfolio and that by leveraging these assets they can generate new revenue streams, strengthen strategic control over profits, and reduce risk[10].

II. IP Management: Building up your IP Portfolio and Business Strategy

a. Introduction to IP Value Creation and Business Strategy.

“What is the Culture of your business?” Gerald Rosenthal, vice president of licensing and intellectual property at IBM.

It has become more frequent for companies to use their intangible assets to differentiate themselves from competitors, leading to a maximization of their IP[11]. This notwithstanding, some companies fail to encourage conversations about strategy between legal experts that have business-oriented minds and R & D specialists. This disparity in different areas of a company can lead to an inefficient strategy for dealing with IP which affects a company’s capacity for leveraging its investments[12].

This is much more important than has been recognized because even though legal patent professionals are highly skilled at protecting IP, they are not always aware of the consequences of not developing and implementing strategies that consider the market or the business culture in which a company operates[13]. This little detail should not be taken lightly. As Louis M. Troilo affirms, an appropriate IP management is specific to a company′s corporate culture and business objectives[14].

Again, legal IP strategy and Business Strategy are two sides of the same coin. But how are these two strategies linked together in practice? IP Value Chain Model is a concept that is based on a logical framework that analyzes the development of IP from the stages of inventions or external acquisition to the last phases of IP Portfolio Management and Commercialization[15].

We will focus on the work that needs to be done on these last two phases because in order to maximize revenue by building an IP Portfolio, you must connect the business strategy with the process that revolves around building an IP Portfolio. Failure to do so will lead to a senseless protection of IP that does not support the necessary strategy to create value and, therefore, revenue[16].

b. Building an IP Portfolio and Strategy:

The starting point for the creation of an IP Strategy to prevent losing potential to generate IP value is to design a legal framework for the protection of its IP[17], that much has been made clear thus far. But in order to be successful at this, patent lawyers and patent licensing consultants need to build a portfolio so that you can be in a position where you can actually know how much your IP portfolio is worth[18]. If we are talking about determining the value of a company based on the investments it has made on its IP, we need to identify the IP owned by the company, determine the strength and coverage of those assets, fill in any gaps in those assets and monetize them[19].

If you are in the business of consulting services for a company, you need to audit the company that you are working with in order to devise a strategy. In an IP Strategy all sort of IP should be included, such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and even know how. We may start with an IP audit that begins with a process of reviewing IP with the aim of categorizing and evaluating all the assets that a company owns, like patents and trademarks, or controls: via licenses, contracts, or transfers done by way of M & A activity. We should also identify potential sources of IP assets such as ongoing research activities or joint ventures [20].

Through an IP auditing process, we can help in identifying technical concepts that require patent protection, brands which should be protected by trademark registration and copyright material which is proprietary to the organization[21]. In essence, an IP audit can aid a company in signaling the strengths and weaknesses a Portfolio may have because many companies don’t really know what IP they have, what they cover and, therefore, don’t even know if they are using enough or too much resources on their IP[22].

Once this is done, the Portfolio building process should include an assessment of all the assets to ensure that all the legal formalities were taken into consideration so that the IP asset is free of any legal problem (e.g. encumbrance of assets, faulty IP registration, etc.) and therefore, completely enforceable. If there are any defects they must be dealt with immediately by refiling for the patent, trademark or industrial design[23]. The next logical step would be to devise an IP strategy in relation to the company’s business plan and current and future marketing strategy[24].

What are the markets in which the company operates and in which its assets have value? In what areas or market segments should it protect itself? Developing and maintaining an effective IP strategy is a challenging but essential step in preparing to take an innovation to market and is often heavily dependent on the sector in which firms operate[25].

There are many different types of IP assets and each kind will need a different scope of protection depending on the market; core IP should be given the broadest form of protection given that those assets are essential to the company, while non-core assets may be given less protection[26]. However, non-core assets do have a lot of value even if they are not part of a company’s main economic activity.

Moreover, building a portfolio is important not only to identify business strategies beyond the initial protection of IP, but also in response to M & A activity as has been briefly mentioned before. No matter what strategy a firm has come up with, those that actively manage their portfolios and have a clear view of the potential of all their assets, including their non-core assets, are the ones better suited to fully optimize the returns on their IP[27].

As Elvir Causevic[28] suggests non-core assets are so important that for some firms the jump in value could be as significant as a 20% to 30% increase[29]. By classifying and identifying which are the non-core assets from the core assets (the IP that is vital to the business), you can sell them in different transactions to multiple buyers interested in the particular assets which fit their business activity[30]. The point is as clear as Caribbean sea water, not many people understand the potential value of non-core IP and these assets should be understood in order to prevent the loss of a large amount of potential IP value. That potential value could be sold on the market by identifying companies for which these non-core IP assets will be useful through market based or technology-based searches[31].

So, thus far we have audited our portfolio, made an assessment of our assets through the lens of a legal IP professional in order to be sure that all the IP is well registered and protected, and we have also identified and distinguished between core assets and non-core assets to draw out a business strategy in the process of building our portfolio. Now, we have to turn our attention to the possible cracks or gaps that our assets might have because there is always the possibility that some IP may be held by another entity and, in that case, attempts may be made to acquire that IP through licensing, cross-licensing or even purchasing[32].

The outcome of this analysis will lead us through different business strategy paths. To simplify matters, let us assume that there are no cracks on the legality of the IP, that the IP Legal Professionals did everything right and that your portfolio is ¨clean¨ from legal claims, we may then move on to Portfolio Monetization.

III. Monetization of an IP Portfolio Part 1: Portfolio Management

One curious thing to note is that an appropriate management of IP assets is a key aspect to the competitiveness and sustained growth of any company or entity because, not only they can be used as leverage or as another source of revenue, a.k.a monetization, but because it can also diversify risk[33]. For example, IBM makes more than $1.5 billion annually in profits by licensing its intangible assets, all without making a single product[34]. Other companies assessing their product portfolios may need to have a different approach and determine if the threat of future litigation might arise, designing their licensing strategy or other strategies (including IP infringement insurance) as a way to reduce risk[35].

Portfolio Management starts with an assessment of the Portfolio Value by identifying the potential for negotiation it offers and the economic impact its patents have[36]. As Alcácer suggests, in countries with strong IP protection, firms can approach the party that infringed an IP and try to negotiate a settlement that includes either selling or licensing the IP that has been infringed[37]. So there are different possible outcomes to a claim of patent infringement. Therefore, the assessment of the portfolio not only depends on an analysis of the quality of the patent, but also on its provable use. This is key to Portfolio Valuation from the perspective of Portfolio Management because some patents may be being used and these are the ones that can shape your monetization plans[38].

This provable use is important because if there is no provable use of the assets in a portfolio it cannot be effectively monetized[39]. You need to prove that your IP can be used or is actually being used in order to enforce your IP rights and, therefore, be in a position to claim that they are being infringed so that you can monetize your portfolio by litigating, licensing, cross-licensing or reaching some sort of agreement.

Thus, decisions concerning what to do with the assets of a portfolio will typically revolve around:

? Enforcement

? Buying or Selling, and even

? Abandoning certain types of assets[40].

A. Enforcement: Licensing

How can enforcement support your business strategy and portfolio monetization?

A successfully marketed product has an IP that is likely to be infringed by competitors, so companies should be prepared to protect by any means necessary—a notice of possible litigation, alternative dispute resolution, or even a suit[41]. Indeed, it is through enforcement that you can analyze sources of threats and prepare to assert your IP rights (in the case you are being infringed), but also defend against them (in case you understand you have a right to use a product, but are the one with the weakest claim to the IP right).[42]

Patent enforcement and licensing represents a possibility for monetization, but it requires legal and technical due diligence to determine if there is a viable patent infringement claim and, in that case, if there are sufficient damages to cover the cost of a patent infringement lawsuit.

1. Licensing and Cross-Licensing

A licensing agreement is a partnership between an intellectual property rights owner (licensor) and another who is authorized to use such rights (licensee) in exchange for an agreed payment (fee or royalty)[43]. Licensing opportunities are a sure way to monetize your portfolio by arranging deals with competitors who are infringing your IP and generating revenue through market mechanisms such as royalty payments; these payments are due for the continued use of your innovation in their product[44].

Licensing is also an option for the exposure of your innovative ideas in the market, benefitting inventors and small businesses that don't have enough funds to start the manufacturing processes of a product, the automatization of processes or the development of a technology. This is particularly the case with start-ups that need capital financing. However, start-up companies depend on their ability to demonstrate their market potential to the venture capital[45] and that could only be done by building a strong IP portfolio with the right strategy.

In the case of cross-licensing, it tends to be used in collaborative contexts where multiple subjects have a particular claim to the IP the other one is using, rather than strictly in situations where one part is asserting a patent claim. A cross-licensing patent agreement may be defined as a contract between at least two parties that grants mutual rights to both parties’ intellectual property[46]. This agreement can be a private one between two specific companies or a small consortium of companies, as in the case of patent pools[47], which I′ll come back to in just a bit.

Cross licensing is big, and it accounts for a big amount of all licensing agreements, specially in the telecommunications, broadcasting and pharmaceutical industries[48], and as I′ve already stated, it is applied when two parties have a claim to the IP property of the other, which drives both to sue and counter-sue. This situation isn′t entirely bad because it provides both parties with the opportunity to reach a settlement where the infringer now becomes a friendly collaborator, reducing litigation fees (by withdrawing from the claim) and encouraging the exchange of knowledge[49], while at the same time protecting the company from future litigation[50].

Other benefits of cross-licensing include bundling complimentary IP to create a better product, gaining access to new markets, lowering product development costs, benefitting from the other party′s manufacturing or marketing abilities and, most importantly, creating an IP sharing economy in which unused IP assets can increase in value and be monetized[51].

2. Patent Pools

Patent pools function in a very similar manner to cross licensing in various regards. Firstly, it is part of a collaborative approach and it is deemed to be a non-market mechanism by authors like Alcácer[52] it is an agreement between two or more patent owners to license one or more of their patents to one another, but int this case it may also be agreed upon to license each of said parties’ licenses to a third party[53]. Typically, patent pools involve complex technologies that require complementary patents in order to provide efficient technical solutions[54], or a complete product. It has been said that Patent pools came to exist because they help to prevent competing technology owners suing each other endlessly in order to exclude each other from the particular technology area[55].

While that much is true, there is a wide consensus that pooling has been the historical result of new technologies needing multiple patents with different owners coming together [56] in order to complete a product or a set of products that work inherently together in the market. One example of such a patent pool is DVD6C Licensing Group that covers a technology on DVD discs, players, drives, recorders, and decoders[57].

The only downsize of patent pools is the ever-present risk of committing anti-competitive practices by colluding parties[58] and, even though this does not fall under the scope of this article, we might as well hint at it as it may be part of a future entry.

B. Licensing as opposed to Buying, Selling, Trading or Abandoning Assets.

Regarding the decision to buy or sell assets, various factors will determine the criteria you use to buy assets for your portfolio or sell them. One may argue that a company may look to expand its portfolio by growing in areas where the company hasn′t developed many assets and that, conversely, it may sell in areas where it has too many assets or abandon them altogether[59].

In relation to abandoning the IP assets, sometimes it just helps you to reduce maintenance costs[60]. For example, Dow Jones saved $40 million in annual maintenance fees of its patents by cutting 10,000 assets from its portfolio. In contrast, companies may also consider selling, licensing or even enforcement (litigating) as part of a strategy to save money on maintenance fees[61], so abandoning patents is not the only IP maintenance cost reducing option.

Saving money from maintenance costs would not be, by far, the only reason to abandon a patent. Patents may be abandoned under the criteria that the innovation was not accepted by the market and that it is not expected to be[62], or because your patent competed against another similar, albeit sufficiently different, patent and lost a market war to it (think about Toshiba′s HD-DVD versus Sony′s Blue Ray technology).

Depending on the context, other alternatives may be economically more attractive for a company given that there are a lot of opportunities of monetizing a portfolio in IP trading as well. IP can be traded, its ownership can be transferred, it can be licensed to other firms[63] or its potential value be used to entice investors. Yet, according to research, third party licensing seems to be one of the most common ways of exploiting a portfolio. In fact, most companies tend to design their strategies around licensing the rights to use certain patents to other companies[64], for several reasons, like defeating the competition[65].

However, licensing patents rights can also be part of a lucrative strategy in which business is done with companies in non-competing industries when a technology has crossover attributes in different industries[66]. Indeed, companies will often use IP as a tool to prevent competition.

But, even if this can be a correct strategy, companies should also consider having an asset specific approach for each asset in their portfolio and determine when it is convenient to engage in licensing to prevent competition, when it can be more profitable to cross-license or to sell, to abandon or trade them, or even when it is more useful to enter into joint-ventures[67]. Thus, the goal of licensing or of establishing Joint Ventures should not only be preventing competition, it could also be to maximize the value of the IP[68].

C. IP as collateral for a Loan or Raising Finance:

1. Corporate Financing Revisited

Another way of monetizing an IP Portfolio is to use IP as collateral to have access to credit or to increase the amount of credit available[69]. IP related transactions are not yet common in Wall Street, like in the film and music industries, but the practice is increasing there just like it is in the biotechnology and software industries[70].

One of the most well-known examples of using IP as collateral for loans is the famous transaction done by David Bowie. Basically, he agreed to a 10-year asset-backed bonds on the basis of future royalties on publishing rights and master recordings from 25 pre-recorded albums and raised US$55 million.[71] The purchaser of the bonds gained the right to receive future royalties from Bowie’s albums until the principal plus 8% annual interest was repaid[72].

Asset-backed securitization is also well recognized in the field of patents, where the patent can be treated as a commercial asset on the basis of the exclusive legal rights it represents[73]. Thus, securitization is possible for future royalty payments from licensing a patent, trademark or trade secret, or from musical compositions or recording rights of a musician[74].

However, practice of extending loans secured solely by IP assets is not very common in any market. In fact, it is practiced more by venture capitalists than by banks[75]. If you seek to use IP assets as collateral to obtain financing, your IP assets stand a greater chance of being accepted as collateral if you are able to prove their liquidity and that they can be valued separately from your business[76]. This is where IP Valuation, which is part of the auditing process mentioned before, is a matter of life or death as much as it is for licensing as it is for using the IP as collateral for a loan, or for raising capital in finance markets[77].

Having said this, the IP valuation is not the final hurdle firms or companies may face in trying to use their IP for the purposes of obtaining cash flow, credit or any other form of IP Portfolio monetization. If you are going to use your intellectual property as collateral for a loan, there may be negative covenants (those cracks in your IP that I talked about before) that will preclude you from doing things like monetizing your portfolio because eventually monetization requires litigation[78]. In this scenario, the first thing a defendant will try to do will be invalidate your patents and if he is successful, he wipes out the collateral value for the loan you are looking for, so often times you won’t be able to do everything[79].

In spite of the inherent risk of litigation and of a lack of confidence in most markets in relation to using IP as collateral for loans or other financial transactions, it is worth noting that it definitely serves as an enhancer for the credit basis of companies and that the current trend is an increase in favor of its use.

From a legal perspective though, most jurisdictions at the international level do not yet offer adequate means for financing intangible assets[80]. In the United States, one of the major markets for IP securitization, article 9 of the UCC governs for perfecting the security interest in personal property[81]. In Spain, article 45, 47 and 69 of the “Ley de Hipoteca Mobiliaria y Prenda sin Desplazamiento” governs how a security interest over IP is perfected.

In the future, we will delve specifically into the legal requirements that must be met in order to perfect a security interest over Intellectual Property in both the US and Spain, but for now I reiterate what I stated above through Alcácer, that is, that the only strong legal IP regimes are still those that work at a national level and that this also must be taken into account when devising an IP legal and Business Strategy in order to capture IP value, increase it or monetize it.

Don′t miss the next article, where I′ll be talking about Mergers and Acquisitions and Asset Specific Purchases as other alternatives, perhaps the most lucrative, in capturing IP value and maximizing its latent value.

[1] Gerald B. Holt Jr. & Robert I. Solomon, A Strategy for Monetizing Intellectual Property, 240 The Legal Intelligencer (2009), https://vklaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/64_Monetizing-Intellectual-Property.pdf (last visited Aug 28, 2019).

[2] Peter Wilson, novagraaf.com (2018), Capturing value: IP as a driver for investment.

https://www.novagraaf.com/en/insights/capturing-value-ip-driver-investment (last visited Aug 26, 2019).

[3] Juan Alcácer, Karin Beukel & Bruno Cassiman, semanticscholar.org (2017), https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ff1c/75d65f4097b71cb59c709f47644ce050473f.pdf?_ga=2.78125716.1254919138.1566646115-351400042.1566646115 (last visited Aug 26, 2019).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Friedman, M., Veschi, J., Gill, A. and Zenkich, R. (2019). Capturing Intellectual Property Value in Transactions. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF8I8cYqq_g&t=1402s [Accessed 21 Jul. 2019]

[7] Supra, note 3.

[8] Id.

[9] Ron Carson, Get Your Assets in Gear: Aligning IP Strategy and Business Strategy World Intellectual Property Organization (2008), https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip_business_strategy.pdf (last visited Aug 7, 2019).

[10] Id.

[11] Michael J. Dansky et al., Q&A: Creating value through IP asset management and valuation, Financier Worldwide Magazine, 2016, https://www.financierworldwide.com/qa-creating-value-through-ip-asset-management-and-valuation#.XWP_wehKhPY (last visited Aug 29, 2019).

[12] Id.

[13] William A. Barett, Building a Strategy for Maximizing Intellectual Property Value. Nature.com (2005), https://www.nature.com/bioent/2005/050101/full/bioent842.html (last visited Aug 29, 2019

[14] Louis M. Troilo & Lokesh V, Building a Smart IP Portfolio. Finnegan.com (2010), https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/building-a-smart-ip-portfolio.html (last visited Aug 29, 2019).

[15] Supra, note 9.

[16] Supra, note 13.

[17] Supra, note 6.

[18] Id.

[19] Supra, note 1.

[20] Id.

[21] Matt Atkins, Optimizing Value in IP Assets, Financier Worldwide, 2014, https://www.financierworldwide.com/optimising-value-in-ip-assets#.XWjx0ehKhPY (last visited Aug 30, 2019).

[22] Id.

[23] Supra, note 1.

[24] Id.

[25] Supra, note 21.

[26] Supra, note 1.

[27] Supra, note 21.

[28] Elvir Causevic is the author of an article published in the Berkley Business Law Journal titled Effectively Discharging Fiduciary Duties in IP-Rich M&A Transactions.

[29] Elvir Causevic, Multiplying Your Company’s Value With “Non-Core” Intellectual Property Rubiconins.com (2018), https://www.rubiconins.com/multiplying-your-companys-value-with-non-core-intellectual-property/ (last visited Aug 30, 2019).

[30] Id.

[31] Supra, note 1.

[32] Id.

[33] Christopher Heer & Daryna Kutsyna, How To Monetize Intellectual Property. HeerLaw.com (2018), https://www.heerlaw.com/monetizing-intellectual-property (last visited Sep 2, 2019).

[34] Russ O′Haver, Monetize your Intellectual Property: Techniques to Generate Value Breese Blogs, https://breese.blogs.com/pi/files/TITRISATION.pdf (last visited Aug 13, 2019).

[35] Id.

[36] Martin Bijman, Inside Views: Four Stages To Monetizing A Patent Portfolio. Ip-watch.org (2017). Available at: https://www.ip-watch.org/2017/09/28/four-stages-monetizing-patent-portfolio/ (last visited Sep 2, 2019).

[37] Supra, note 3.

[38] Supra, note 36.

[39] Id.

[40] Id.

[41] Roberto d′Erme. European Intellectual Property Help Desk. Intellectual Property Commercialization Highlights. Bulletin Number 9, March-June 2013. Available at: https://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/Intellectual%20Property%20commercialization%20highlights.pdf. (Las visit on the 5th of September 2019).

[42] Supra, note 36.

[43] Licensing of Intellectual Property Rights; a Vital Component of the Business Strategy of Your SME, Wipo.int (2019), https://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/licensing/licensing.htm (last visited Sep 4, 2019).

[44] Supra, note 34.

[45] Noel C. Gillespie. How to Build and Maximize Value in an IP Portfolio. The Key to Venture Capital Financing. Procopio.com (2012). Available at: https://www.procopio.com/uploads/model/Block/4572/pdf/130/docs-1505474-v4-building-and-maximizing-the-value-in-an-ip-portfolio-1997.pdf (last visited Sep 12, 2019).

[46] Shai Jalfin, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of Cross Licensing Your Technology Patents Ipwatchdog.com (2017). Available at: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/12/15/good-bad-ugly-cross-licensing-technology-patents/id=90954/ (last visited Sep 5, 2019).

[47] Id.

[48] Id.

[49] Id.

[50] Supra, note 1.

[51] Id.

[52] Supra, note 3.

[53] Patent Pools and Antitrust: A Comparative Analysis, WIPO (2019). Available at: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf (last visited Sep 16, 2019).

[54] Id.

[55] Esther H. Lim & Mandy J. Song, Dealing with U.S. Patent Pools as a Third-Party. Finnegan (2010), Available at: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/dealing-with-u-s-patent-pools-as-a-third-party.html (last visited Sep 16, 2019).

[56] Id.

[57] Id.

[58] Supra, note 53.

[59] Supra, note 36.

[60] Supra, note 34.

[61] Mark A. Baghdassarian, The Latest Trend in Private Equity Funding in IP Monetization Lexology.com (2013). Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b2685871-7776-42b6-8b58-371bb3e634fb (last visited Sep 16, 2019).

[62] Supra, note 36.

[63] Supra, note 3.

[64] Supra, note 34.

[65] Id.

[66] Id.

[67] Supra, note 11.

[68] Id.

[69] Intellectual Property Financing: An introduction, World Intellectual Property Organization (2008). Available at: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/05/article_0001.html (last visited Sep 17, 2019).

[70] Id.

[71] Id.

[72] Id.

[73] Id.

[74] The Securitization of Intellectual Property Assets: A New Trend, World Intellectual Property Organization. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/finance/securitization.htm (last visited Sep 17, 2019).

[75] Importance of Proper Valuation of Intellectual Property for Obtaining Financing. WIPO. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/finance/proper_valuation.htm (last visited Sep 17, 2019).

[76] Id.

[77] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Intellectual Property Commercialization, pg. 96 (2011). Available at: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ceci/publications/ip.pdf (last visited on Sep 17, 2016).

[78] Supra, note 6.

[79] Id.

[80] Supra, note 69.

[81] Michael Best, Perfecting Security Interest in Intellectual Property: The Problem with Relying on UCC Financing Statements. Lexology (2018). Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6c5cd4a1-f6de-485a-ab77-3d6ac541a44a (last visited Sep 17, 2019).