|
|
🎯 IP Management Pulse #60
|
Your inbox-insider from Prof. Wurzer every two weeks
|
|
|
|
|
|
In corporate IP management, two types of developments are currently shaping strategic decision-making: increasing systemic uncertainty on the one hand, and long-term technological shifts on the other.
|
On the one hand, frameworks such as the Unified Patent Court (UPC) are redefining how and where patent rights can be enforced — creating new opportunities, but also exposing companies to concentrated risks across multiple markets. On the other hand, emerging fields such as quantum technologies require companies to position their intellectual property long before markets, standards, and business models are fully established.
|
The themes covered in this issue are not selected editorially. They are derived from the Open Foresight Board (OFB) Trend Radar and from ongoing discussions within the Open Foresight Board, where in-house IP experts continuously exchange perspectives on emerging developments and their implications for corporate IP management.
|
The Open Foresight Board is part of the Open Foresight Program and brings together in-house IP experts to identify, discuss, and prioritise emerging developments in corporate IP management.
|
This issue presents selected signals that make these developments visible in practice — not as isolated news, but as indicators of broader shifts that require strategic attention. Our aim is to provide orientation by connecting current events with the underlying changes they represent. Here are the hot topics from 23rd of April 2026 - 6th of May 2026:
|
|
|
|
NEWS
|
Strategic choices at the UPC | Breaking the limits of quantum technology | Battery storage as a driver of green tech | Know-how Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEEP DIVES
|
Strategic voice: speaking with impact without becoming a spokesperson | Smart Licensing Models: Why Strong IP Deals Depend on Structure, Not Templates | Strategies for Patent Circumvention
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
🤗 🍵 I wish you an exciting and informative read. I look forward to your comments and our exchange on LinkedIn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unitary Patent and UPC
|
Discussions within the Open Foresight Board highlight two contrasting perspectives on the impact of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on European patent strategy.
|
On the one hand, the UPC is seen as a powerful enforcement tool that enables patent holders to assert their rights more efficiently across multiple jurisdictions. For companies with strong portfolios, this creates new opportunities to centralise litigation and strengthen their competitive position.
|
On the other hand, the same centralisation introduces significant risks. Companies increasingly recognise that a single adverse decision can affect patent protection across several markets at once, shifting attention towards revocation exposure, forum selection, and the robustness of individual patents under concentrated legal scrutiny.
|
The following case illustrates how these risks materialise in practice.
|
Strategic choices at the UPC
Currently, companies are trying to navigate the new strategic options at the UPC, especially in high stakes cases such as the one between ZTE and Samsung. The case is part of a greater conflict between both parties involving patent infringement and FRAND disputes at multiple venues. Nevertheless, the preliminary opinion of the court referred to the Brussels Regulation in its move to reject the FRAND-related application, which was comparable to a previous application at another court.
|
What IP experts can learn from it
|
For IP experts, the case shows that UPC strategy cannot be assessed only through infringement strength or validity arguments. Procedural positioning, parallel venues, FRAND defences and jurisdictional timing can shape outcomes just as strongly. In cross-border patent conflicts, the decisive question is increasingly where a party can create leverage, delay, or pressure. This makes UPC litigation a board-level strategic tool, not merely a legal enforcement option.
|
|
|
|
Background information on the IPBA Connect platform
|
|
|
|
Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the 🔎IP Management Glossary
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantum Computing
|
Discussions within the Open Foresight Board reveal two distinct perspectives on the role of quantum technologies in corporate IP management:
|
For many companies, quantum computing is still perceived as a high-potential but distant field. While its strategic relevance is widely acknowledged, limited technological maturity and unclear timelines mean that, for now, it does not yet trigger immediate IP action.
|
At the same time, companies that are already actively engaging with quantum technologies take a markedly different view. In these discussions, the focus shifts towards early patent positioning, defining protectable subject matter, and aligning IP strategies with future markets long before standards and commercial applications are established.
|
Breaking the limits of quantum technology
Quantum technology is a key enabler for progress in many areas, but its applicability is still limited due to issues with running networks of quantum computers. Cisco now claims to be able to break this limitation with its Quantum Switch technology. This technology might be foundational for making cooperation in the quantum space possible, so that its protection serves as a key asset for orchestrating the whole quantum ecosystem.
|
What IP experts can learn from it
|
For IP experts, Cisco’s Quantum Switch illustrates how quantum IP may shift from protecting single technical breakthroughs to controlling ecosystem infrastructure. When interoperability, networking and orchestration become decisive, patents can define who coordinates access, standards and collaboration models. The strategic task is therefore not only to protect the technology itself, but to map dependencies, interface layers and licensing scenarios before the ecosystem scales commercially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background information on the IPBA Connect platform
|
|
|
|
The Quantum IP Gap in Germany on the 📝IP Business Academy Blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
Green Tech and Sustainability
|
Discussions within the Open Foresight Board highlight a structural dependency of green technologies on policy frameworks and funding environments.
|
On the one hand, companies continue to advance sustainable technologies, supported by strong innovation capabilities and growing patent activity. In this perspective, IP plays a key role in protecting technological advances and enabling collaboration and scaling.
|
On the other hand, it is increasingly recognised that the commercial success of many green technologies is not determined by technical maturity alone. Instead, market adoption often depends on regulatory frameworks, infrastructure development, and — in many cases — the availability and continuity of funding.
|
The following signal illustrates how these dependencies directly affect the path from innovation to market.
|
Battery storage as a driver of green tech
A key driver for enabling the green transformation, e.g. through the introduction of long-distance electric vehicles or the smart grid, is the availability of novel energy storage technologies. Exemplary, Chinese technology company CATL is planning to take the opportunity of receiving $5 billion in fresh funding to support the scaling of its battery business. This funding shows how promising the green technology market is at the time, but also indicates that a solid patent portfolio is required to attract investors.
|
What IP experts can learn from it
|
For IP experts, CATL’s funding underlines that green tech portfolios must support scaling, not only invention protection. Investors will look for defensible positions across battery chemistry, manufacturing processes, safety systems, recycling and grid integration. The strategic question is whether patents create freedom to operate, block fast followers and support partnerships. In capital-intensive markets, IP becomes part of the investment case and a signal of industrial readiness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background information on the IPBA Connect platform
|
|
|
|
Green Technologies and Patents on the digital IP lexicon 🧭dIPlex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Know-how Management
Discussions within the Open Foresight Board highlight a structural shift in how companies need to manage know-how in increasingly competitive and technology-driven markets.
|
On the one hand, companies generate valuable knowledge across R&D, production, data analysis, customer interaction, and collaboration with external partners. In this perspective, know-how becomes a strategic asset that often complements patents, especially where technical knowledge cannot easily be reverse engineered or formally protected.
|
On the other hand, it is increasingly recognised that know-how only creates lasting competitive advantage if it is systematically identified, documented, protected, and made usable within the organisation. Without clear access rules, confidentiality structures, and internal transfer mechanisms, valuable knowledge can remain invisible, be lost through employee mobility, or become vulnerable to misappropriation.
|
The following signal illustrates why know-how management is becoming a board-level issue for companies operating in sensitive and fast-moving technology fields.
|
Trade secret enforcement gets serious
With growing global tensions and fiercer competition in critical industry sectors, countries are intensifying their support for the protection of trade secrets. This even leads to long prison sentences, such as in a current case against employees of Tokyo Electron in Taiwan. To avoid this type of serious IP theft, companies need to come up with new and stronger trade secret management frameworks.
|
What IP experts can learn from it
|
For IP experts, the case shows that trade secrets can no longer be treated as informal internal knowledge. Enforcement depends on whether companies can prove structured identification, access control, documentation and employee obligations before a conflict arises. In sensitive sectors, trade secret management becomes a governance issue. The strategic task is to build systems that prevent leakage, support enforcement and show that confidential know-how was actively protected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources on the IPBA Connect platform
|
|
|
|
Protecting Know-How and Trade Secrets in the Digital Era on the 📑IP Management Letters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the resources of the Open Foresight Program, in-house IP experts find structured insights and practitioner-driven analyses developed with and by the OFB members, highlighting emerging trends, strategic signals, and real-world implications for corporate IP management that can be translated into actionable guidance for their own organisations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Trend Radar of the Open Foresight Program is a structured foresight tool that identifies and visualizes emerging developments shaping corporate IP management. It is created as a result of a study among in-house IP experts, where researchers systematically collect feedback, weight its relevance, and synthesize it into key trend areas.
|
Its purpose is not prediction, but orientation: helping organizations understand complex changes, prioritize what matters, and align IP strategies with evolving technological, geopolitical, and business environments. By translating diverse insights into a clear framework, the Trend Radar enables more informed, forward-looking decision-making in corporate IP management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Visible Council - the IP Expert Branding Column
|
|
|
|
|
Strategic voice: speaking with impact without becoming a spokesperson
|
|
By columnist Giulia Donato, Branding & Communication Consultant at people and brand strategies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article argues that IP experts need a strategic voice without sounding promotional. Visibility is not about posting more, but about making one’s thinking recognisable. Clients want orientation: how an expert frames risks, interprets developments and connects legal or technical issues to business decisions. A strong voice does not mean provocation; it means a consistent interpretive lens. This requires a defined field of relevance, recurring themes and clear framing. Individual experts can show judgement in ways institutional communication cannot. The goal is to communicate rigorously, but more clearly and memorably, so expertise becomes trustworthy before a mandate exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Favorite from the 📝IP Business Academy Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Smart Licensing Models: Why Strong IP Deals Depend on Structure, Not Templates
|
|
|
|
|
The article argues that strong IP licensing depends on deal structure rather than on reused templates. Licensing agreements define control, risk allocation, revenue flows and scalability. Different assets, markets and business models require different clauses, especially around grant of rights, field of use, duration, territory, exclusivity and future developments. The article also stresses that internal group licensing matters for governance, tax and compliance. Smart licensing therefore starts with commercial objectives before drafting legal text. Well-designed structures align ownership, operational use and monetization, while poor templates can create disputes, uncertainty and avoidable regulatory or tax exposure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Favorite from the 🎧Podcast IP Management Voice
|
|
|
|
|
Strategies for Patent Circumvention
|
|
Featuring Julian Veldhuijzen van Zanten, Strategic AI Consultant, Founder & Owner at Youlno.ai, and Wessel Wits, Senior Scientist Metal Additive Manufacturing at NLR - Royal Netherlands Aerospace Centre
|
|
|
|
|
|
This podcast episode explains patent circumvention as a structured innovation method rather than a purely legal defence. It describes how companies can analyse existing patents, identify claim elements that can be avoided or redesigned, and use TRIZ-based problem-solving to generate alternative technical solutions. The approach combines patent analysis, engineering creativity, feasibility checks and legal validation. By doing so, companies can reduce infringement risks while still developing competitive products. The episode shows that patent thickets are not only barriers, but can also reveal design opportunities, differentiation paths and strategic openings for market entry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the 📑IP Management Letter series, IP experts find case-based narratives that show how strategic IP management works in real companies and industries, with practical insights they can directly apply to their own portfolios and client work.
|
|
|
|
|
The Humanoid Robot Race: Why the Real IP Battle Is About Learning Machines
|
|
|
|
The humanoid robotics race is less about individual machines than about controlling scalable learning systems. Competitive advantage will come from combining patents, trade secrets, data, AI models, deployment know-how, manufacturing scale and ecosystem control. IP strategy therefore becomes a strategic architecture for owning the next automation learning curve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
